Clarification on 1v1 Ties - HL2DMU Forum Archive

L2k

2008-07-16 12:26:53

I for one never liked this rule at all, although
I completely understand the point about not summing the frags in the case of a tie.

I have seen a few players get (screwed IMO) by this rule in the following scenario, first round match goes 8-7 or some very close score, second round match goes 10-10. Now in my eyes a clear cut winner has not been shown as winning by 1 point in most cases can be a matter of luck or the result of some glitch or bug (we all know it happens ie; getting stuck in a wall or ceiling ect and having to suicide or w/e hmm drift comes to mind).

Being that rounds are only 15 mins I see no harm in playing a 3rd round and even a 4th round if necessary to get beyond a tie so that a player can actually show that he can win 2 rounds, not win one and tie another, that just seems cheesy to me.
The chances of having a tie 3 rounds in a row is gonna be slim to none and would really show someone can win more than just one round.

I vote to change this rule and discard ties completely and play until a player has won 2 rounds.

Does anyone else who is playing in CAL 1v1 think this would be more fair? I have been told in the past that if the majority of players asked for something it would be considered.
Voice your opinion here!

svN

2008-07-16 13:01:31

In the CU 1v1 summercup we play with a tie breaker a.k.a. BO3 system.
We do this in every livecup aswell and there haven't been any complaints about it yet. So I think you guys should also use the BO3 system as it works very good!

0nti

2008-07-16 18:00:12

BO3 system.

What's that? Best of 3? You play 3 rounds always? ;o

Zman42

2008-07-16 18:07:20

I vote with punk for the exact reasons he posted, its too easy in this game to barely win or lose a round then tie. we should change the rule to play a tiebreaker in that situation imo.

L2k

2008-07-16 18:17:07

0nti wrote:
BO3 system.
What's that? Best of 3? You play 3 rounds always? ;o

Onti, there are cases where in CAL's rules a winner is decided after only two rounds, and thats my point it is not fair that way.
So in actuality it is a best of two at that point and a player has actually only WON one round and tied another.

I already know the only reason someone would object to discarding a tie and continuing until a player wins two rounds is that there would be a possibility of playing for up to 1 hr in extreme cases. My response to that in advance is who says you have to play all the rounds in one sitting? If both players agreed you could always come back later or the next day and continue if need be.

ninojman

2008-07-16 19:05:17

umm good rule. lol It is match based not total frags. Because you don't play on the same map so one map could be a high frag map next could be a low frag count.

And yes if you score more then the other person it is a clear cut way to determine if you won. How is it not? Had this happen twice in the same day for 1v1 and 2v2 last week. Tied one round lost the other. Fun games, despite the loss.

Ko-Tao

2008-07-17 06:14:16

This format is identical to that used by 1v1 competitive money leagues (quake, pk etc)- at the end of 2 rounds, if the round wins arent equal, the match is over and the player with more round wins takes the match. For this purpose a 1:0 is just as good as a 2:0. Also, to clarify: The 3rd round is only to be used if the players round wins are tied after 2 rounds (1:1, or 0:0 in the very unusual case of double ties).

The rules will be updated with this and several other clarifications later tonight; look for an associated announcement in the CAL 1v1 news section tomorrow.

L2k

2008-07-17 06:27:18

Ko-Tao wrote:This format is identical to that used by 1v1 competitive money leagues (quake, pk etc)- at the end of 2 rounds, if the round wins arent equal, the match is over and the player with more round wins takes the match.

sorry but those games are not fubared like hl2dm is, and aside from that if the players who are in the league would prefer it to be different than that of quake ect who cares?

Picture this: can you imagine a CAL finals being decided in this manner?
that would be lame as hell!

L2k

2008-07-17 06:38:37

ninojman wrote:umm good rule. lol It is match based not total frags. Because you don't play on the same map so one map could be a high frag map next could be a low frag count.

LOL? not to be rude but do you have a reading comprehension problem? It would be nice if you read the posts and fully understood what was being said before responding like that.

hint:
this part was of major importance:
I have seen a few players get (screwed IMO) by this rule in the following scenario, first round match goes 8-7 or some very close score, second round match goes 10-10. Now in my eyes a clear cut winner has not been shown as winning by 1 point in most cases can be a matter of luck or the result of some glitch or bug (we all know it happens ie; getting stuck in a wall or ceiling ect and having to suicide or w/e hmm drift comes to mind).

Seagull

2008-07-17 07:02:19

"Picture this: can you imagine a CAL finals being decided in this manner?
that would be lame as hell!"

Considering it almost came down to this last season, yeah, and it's not lame at all. in fact, it happened in season2. I don't really see a problem with the rule. A victory is a victory, no matter if it was 8-7 or 20-7, for cal anyway.

Yes the 8-7 can be decided by luck but that's the risk you take by playing such a slow strategy, and how are more maps going to solve the problem? If it nearly happened twice in a row (with the 8-7 example) then more than likely you're already so equal it's going to come down to luck in the later rounds anyway (unless someone actually starts playing fast and turns a low-frag match into a medium to high frag match, lessening the effect of bad spawns and stuff)

L2k

2008-07-17 09:03:17

Seagull wrote:"Picture this: can you imagine a CAL finals being decided in this manner?
that would be lame as hell!"

Considering it almost came down to this last season, yeah, and it's not lame at all. in fact, it happened in season2. I don't really see a problem with the rule. A victory is a victory, no matter if it was 8-7 or 20-7, for cal anyway.

Yes the 8-7 can be decided by luck but that's the risk you take by playing such a slow strategy, and how are more maps going to solve the problem? If it nearly happened twice in a row (with the 8-7 example) then more than likely you're already so equal it's going to come down to luck in the later rounds anyway (unless someone actually starts playing fast and turns a low-frag match into a medium to high frag match, lessening the effect of bad spawns and stuff)

Thats easy to say when your on the winning end of it, however I highly doubt you would feel the same if you were on the losing end of that deal.
If you were on the losing end of it, like most players you would be feeling like you were robbed. See a tie by definition is just that a *tie* neither player was better than the other they were equal, so why just hand it off to one player?

If this game were perfect and glitches and bugs were not part of the equation then it wouldn't be so bad. When you consider that someone can train all season and then lose like this it just doesn't seem right as it could have been caused by a glitch or bug. Winning just one round doesn't mean much if you can back it up.

If anyone is wondering I have never been in this situation, but I have seen quite a few who were and I just think it's wrong.

So for the people who have commented against it, what is your valid reason? So far I haven't heard one.

Seagull

2008-07-17 14:28:18

what's the alternative? this so far seems to be pretty much the best system unless you have a better one

and for this

"If you were on the losing end of it, like most players you would be feeling like you were robbed. See a tie by definition is just that a *tie* neither player was better than the other they were equal, so why just hand it off to one player?"

well the previous round someone lost and someone won, someone had to have won, generally this means they're better. luck happens, it's your job to make sure it doesn't affect you as much (I changed my entire gamestyle in-between seasons to counter this for instance, but I doubt anyone even noticed/cares considering I rarely 1v1 at all)

"If this game were perfect and glitches and bugs were not part of the equation then it wouldn't be so bad. When you consider that someone can train all season and then lose like this it just doesn't seem right as it could have been caused by a glitch or bug. Winning just one round doesn't mean much if you can back it up."

if someone is really training the entire season then they should have learned (or at least soon will, if they run into the type of event you describe) how to make luck have less of an effect on the match overall. then again bad things can happen but you just have to take a break and go back at it some other time

ninojman

2008-07-17 18:51:23

ninojman wrote: And yes if you score more then the other person it is a clear cut way to determine if you won. How is it not? Had this happen twice in the same day for 1v1 and 2v2 last week. Tied one round lost the other. Fun games, despite the loss.

Keep reading Punk,

Now tell me how in the hell is it not fair for the person that scored more points then the other to win?

I thought of this post while waiting to spawn on aim_arena while i was winning with 7 seconds left. And only winning by one point. I spawned close but was able to keep moving and stay alive. This happen in our match it was 8-7 and you looked at the other spawn point as i spawned 2 feet to your right. I slowly moved behind you grabbed the shotgun and waited as long as i could (about 5 seconds left) then engaged with the shotty.

"(we all know it happens ie; getting stuck in a wall or ceiling ect and having to suicide or w/e hmm drift comes to mind)."

Luck? no I am pretty sure that if you practiced you would know about this and if it happens to you, then yes you deserve to die. What about on avalon you could jusr get a lot of fall damage and suicide? But same thing you should know each fall can cost 10 hp so don't do it.

The fact is, The Tie doesn't give an advantage to either player so then it goes to the other round Which if one player won then that gives them the advantage. That just makes sense. As i said in my first post, this also happen in 2v2 which is total frags. So basicly after the first round it was tied 56-56 going into the second round, It was winner takes all. And OMG it was caverns_r1 you could get stuck in the sewer mouth omg no!!

L2k

2008-07-17 20:10:36

ninojman wrote:Now tell me how in the hell is it not fair for the person that scored more points then the other to win?

It's not fair because its only showing he can win one round, which in my book don't mean shit. If a player is better than the other at any given time he should be able to win Two rounds negating all the BS that comes along with this game.

Still waiting for a valid reason why a tie shouldn't be discarded. So far all I'm hearing is the player won *One* round.

ninojman

2008-07-17 23:30:36

L2k wrote:
ninojman wrote:Now tell me how in the hell is it not fair for the person that scored more points then the other to win?
It's not fair because its only showing he can win one round, which in my book don't mean shit. If a player is better than the other at any given time he should be able to win Two rounds negating all the BS that comes along with this game.

Still waiting for a valid reason why a tie shouldn't be discarded. So far all I'm hearing is the player won *One* round.

the other player didn't win any round.

One is greater then Zero. Math class is over, dismissed

L2k

2008-07-18 02:25:30

ninojman wrote:
L2k wrote:
ninojman wrote:Now tell me how in the hell is it not fair for the person that scored more points then the other to win?
It's not fair because its only showing he can win one round, which in my book don't mean shit. If a player is better than the other at any given time he should be able to win Two rounds negating all the BS that comes along with this game.

Still waiting for a valid reason why a tie shouldn't be discarded. So far all I'm hearing is the player won *One* round.
the other player didn't win any round.

One is greater then Zero. Math class is over, dismissed

Your just a barrel of LOL's now

Per the CAL rules as of today this is how it reads:

3.60 Calling the Match

Regulation matches consist of a total of 3 rounds, with the winner being the player with the most round wins at the end of the match. If there is a tie after three rounds the match will be counted as a tie. Under no circumstances should a player leave the server before all rounds have been completed. If a player does leave before match completion, the leaving player will be deemed to forfeit.

Ok,
So even though the admins are calling this something other than what it says, my point as it has been since the beginning is that how can you rightly say there is a winner if only two rounds have been played? The rules as they have always stated say and I quote " Regulation matches consist of a total of 3 rounds"

This does not mean two rounds it means three, so I guess were going back to STA days where admins can make the rules out to be something other than what they clearly say. So for 3 seasons now players who were declared losers after only getting to play two rounds were getting screwed as they still had a chance to make a tie by winning in the third round. This is not my opinion it is what the rules say exactly, I'd love to see anyone prove it means something otherwise. I quote again " If there is a tie after three rounds the match will be counted as a tie."

It is my belief that this rule was written for a reason, and that is simple; in order for a player to show he is better he must be able to beat another player more than once. Think of the NBA they play a series of games to determine a champion, why do you think that is how it is? The reason is because Basketball games can go either way very easy much in the same way this game of hl2dm can, many times games end by one basket (or in our case one frag). So they play a series of games to determine who is better. Games cannot be decided by a tie in basketball and they should not here or in any competitive sport for that matter, as a tie does not show superiority it shows equality.

For one it's ridiculous that CAL is allowing the rules to say one thing while something else is being enforced.
Secondly if you want CAL to be modeled after other professional sports you take ties out of the scenario especially when you are playing a series of rounds to determine who is stronger.

One round win does NOT show superiority.
One round win and one tie still does not show superiority, not here and not in any other professional sport that uses a series format.

Paradox

2008-07-18 02:47:30

I will say that the rules as written are often not entirely clear and there have been some changes that have not yet been updated in the rules as posted. There have been efforts to post those changes on the forums such as this:

1v1 League Match Format

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The HL2DM 1v1 League will be using a best-of-3 rounds format, as follows:

First round, the away player chooses a map from the list. The round is played on the home player's server, with total frags determining the round winner. Second round, play switches to the away player's server and the home player selects their map of choice; again, total frags decide the round winner.

Should each player win a round, a tiebreaking 3rd round using the same format as rounds 1 and 2 will be played on the home player's server, using the predetermined weekly league map.

The player that wins 2 rounds, or has the most round wins after 3 rounds are completed, wins the match. Note that frag totals are only used to determine round winners and have no effect on the overall match score. To clarify, if a player wins the 1st round 50:0, then loses the 2nd round 9:10, the match total is 1:1 and a 3rd round must be played.

The timelimit for each round is 15 minutes, with the option of a 5 minute break between rounds.

The default match time/day in the 1v1 division is Tuesday at 9:00 PM EST.

A full rules listing for the League is available in the CAL main site HL2DM 1v1 section.

So as Fearsome stated: If one player wins one round and the next ties a third round could cause yet another tie. You are only supposed to go to a 3rd round if the two first rounds end up in a 1:1. If one player wins one round and the second is tied then its a 1:0. Two rounds were played, one round was won so by default the winner of the one round wins. If the tied round is thrown out, and the third round goes to a overall tie (1:1), then a fourth must be played which would cause a rather lengthy match.

L2k

2008-07-18 03:15:48

Paradox thanks for repeating that, except I already know this. I have been talking about this for 3 seasons now and right or wrong if thats how fearsome wants to run it, what would be so hard about updating the official rules to reflect that?
Saying it in IRC or posting it on any forum is not Official rules and is the reason people get confused, because they go to look at the CAL rules when they want to know what the rule is.

I did some research and for the record other money tournaments are not done in this manner, they are done by sudden death when a tie occurs. Given a choice I would prefer another round and not sudden death but apparently having a choice is not a option.

Currently quakecon 2008 is having a 12,500 tournament and the rules for that are yet to be posted, will be interesting to see what they do this year since last year it was sudden death. Thank god someone running a tournament somewhere has the brains to see that a tie isn't worth anything.

I furthermore do not understand why anyone would object to playing another round as most of the players are sitting at there pc for hours on end anyway and we are talking about no more than one hour here, not two not three but one hour.

L2k

2008-07-18 04:10:13

If anyones interested here is the rules for quakecon 2007

. Tournament Rules

The Quad Damage Tournament will consist of 2 phases of Group Play followed by a single elimination bracket phase.

The prizes are as follows:

*

First Place: $20,000
*

Second Place: $12,500
*

Third Place: $7,500
*

Fourth Place: $5,000
*

Fifth-Eighth Place: $1,250

2a. Match Format

* All Quake 2-4 rounds will be played using a time limit of fifteen (15) minutes and no frag limit (0) Quakeworld rounds will be played with a time limit of ten (10) minutes.
* Player's scores will be tallied by calculating frags minus suicides, where the remaining value is the player's official score.
* In the case of a tied score at the end of the regular fifteen (15) minute time period an overtime period of two (2) minutes will be added to the clock for Quake 2-4 round and three (3) minutes for QuakeWorld rounds.
o In the case of a tied score after a single overtime period, additional overtime periods will be added to the clock in two (2) or three (3) minute intervals as required until a winner is determined
* For each Group play round, the higher scoring player of the game is the winner, and will be awarded 1 point.
* For best of 3 matches, the match winner will be the player who wins 2 individual rounds.
o The winner is decided by the player with the higher score at the end of the round.
o If after the two rounds, the result is a tie, a tiebreaker game & map will be played. The tie breaker game & map will be determined by the SLANT randomizer from the 2 remaining games.

This is for 1v1 and group play

The full rule set can be viewed here: http://www.quakecon.org/tournaments/rul ... quaddamage

So the way CAL is doing it is really not the generally accepted method and for good reason.

Seagull

2008-07-18 04:16:50

in terms of cal, a win of 8:7 is equal to 80:7. if he beats the opponent the first round and ties the second round, then the first player is overall superior to the other one.

sure it might be luck, but i'd rather have that system than one where he totally dominates a player 90:10 on his map then ties the second (luck or not) and have to play another map.

if that round is discarded games can last a very long time and 1v1s are EXTREMELY taxing.

edit:overtime might be cool but luck can affect a LOT more in 2 minutes (or 3), that system is built for quake where it's pretty much no luck and very fast, so a lot of frags can happen in that timeframe (or not, if a player plays pretty slowly). more rounds are too taxing for the players imo.

Ko-Tao

2008-07-18 04:24:25

A good part of the rules lack of clarity is due to them being pulled wholesale from other leagues when CAL-HL2DM was created. I thought this particular rule had been reworded during season 2, but apparently it hadnt, or was only reworded in the TDM divisions, where it would have been subsequently removed when those divisions dropped the best-of-three format.

Anyhow, as stated earlier in this thread, the rules will be updated for clarity before the end of the day.

ninojman

2008-07-18 04:32:20

there you go, just go tell valve to add a sudden death matches Gl hf

1 > 0

L2k

2008-07-18 06:12:08

Seagull wrote:in terms of cal, a win of 8:7 is equal to 80:7. if he beats the opponent the first round and ties the second round, then the first player is overall superior to the other one.

sure it might be luck, but i'd rather have that system than one where he totally dominates a player 90:10 on his map then ties the second (luck or not) and have to play another map.

if that round is discarded games can last a very long time and 1v1s are EXTREMELY taxing.

edit:overtime might be cool but luck can affect a LOT more in 2 minutes (or 3), that system is built for quake where it's pretty much no luck and very fast, so a lot of frags can happen in that timeframe (or not, if a player plays pretty slowly). more rounds are too taxing for the players imo.

Seagull, I appreciate your input into this thread but your making hypothetical situations which in general do not occur (ie; 90:10 and then a tie) from what I have seen the cases that this applies to have been very close in score and therefore true superiority has not been shown. The purpose of CAL is for players to find out who is the better player and have fun doing so. Losing matches and or championships over a rule which is not considered the standard format in 1v1 FPS leagues and tournaments is defeating the original purpose because its basing the winner off of one insignificant win, and taking all the fun out of it for the player who is feeling screwed over by some lame rule which is not used anywhere that I can find.

I only brought this up again because I am the type of person who likes to see things be totally fair to all involved and I also believe that things like rules should be enforced as written.

I have to disagree with you on the fact that quake is any different than hl2dm, both games have fast movement and both games have spawn kills and weapons that are one shot kills, which makes them pretty similar.

L2k

2008-07-18 06:14:55

ninojman wrote:there you go, just go tell valve to add a sudden death matches Gl hf

1 > 0

How bout using a little smarts and making a overtime.cfg to use in the case of a tie

Like we need valve for that

Seagull

2008-07-18 08:28:31

"Seagull, I appreciate your input into this thread but your making hypothetical situations which in general do not occur (ie; 90:10 and then a tie) from what I have seen the cases that this applies to have been very close in score and therefore true superiority has not been shown."

http://caleague.com/?page=match&matchid=1368360
http://caleague.com/?page=match&matchid=1371034
http://caleague.com/?page=match&matchid=1373740

K.

"I have to disagree with you on the fact that quake is any different than hl2dm, both games have fast movement and both games have spawn kills and weapons that are one shot kills, which makes them pretty similar."

if you seriously think this then lol.

L2k

2008-07-18 08:31:31

From CAL quake4 1v1 rules:
3.10 Winning

The winner of a match will be determined by best 2 out of 3. Whomever wins 2 games first will report the scores on the CALeague.com website. The Third map should not be played if it cannot affect the outcome of the match.

another case of rules stating 2 games must be won, however there is no reference to any ties.

L2k

2008-07-18 08:40:22

Seagull wrote: http://caleague.com/?page=match&matchid=1368360
http://caleague.com/?page=match&matchid=1371034
http://caleague.com/?page=match&matchid=1373740

Yeah these are good examples and far from a blow out or total domination's like you described, esp considering they are rocket control maps on the ones where the winning player won by less than 10 points. These examples just bring another fault with the current system to light. On small rocket control maps you can get repeatedly spawn raped by rpgs and that can be very hard to overcome.

Walking Target

2008-07-18 08:46:52

The current format is acceptable to me.

Tie + Win > Tie + Loss

I agree CAL rules need updating and should be perfectly clear however. Despite what the official rules may state, the admins have made it abundantly clear what the intention is.

ninojman

2008-07-18 09:36:19

it's not tennis it's hl2dm

Seagull

2008-07-18 14:36:11

L2k wrote:
Seagull wrote: http://caleague.com/?page=match&matchid=1368360
http://caleague.com/?page=match&matchid=1371034
http://caleague.com/?page=match&matchid=1373740
Yeah these are good examples and far from a blow out or total domination's like you described, esp considering they are rocket control maps on the ones where the winning player won by less than 10 points. These examples just bring another fault with the current system to light. On small rocket control maps you can get repeatedly spawn raped by rpgs and that can be very hard to overcome.

???

First link: 28-22. map = tigcrik a win by 6 frags
Second link: 17-9. map = biohazard a win by 8 frags
Third link: 23:15. map = tigcrik. a win by 8 frags

they aren't a total blow out or dominated but they are rarely determined by luck when the gap is that far apart. the only one that's a rocket control map is biohazard, and that's generally somewhat fast paced (at least in that specific match it seems it was, decent number of frags there for bio) and for tigcrik those are both decently sized leads that can hardly be determined by luck (tig is a very item-control based map more than others when you can control the *entire* map heh). sure small rocket control maps you can be owned by rpg with bad spawns, but then again that's just bad luck and will happen under any system. then again you can always just suicide ggun nade on the guy for breaking his control (most of the time) unless you're getting really really bad bad spawns. like spawning next to the guy in an open area vs spawning next to him in an area where you can at least attempt to dodge and get a nade off.

Ko-Tao

2008-07-18 14:59:15

The 1v1 division rules have been fully updated; the exact rules for both this and various other previously uncertain situations should now be completely clear.

the_big_cheese

2008-07-18 23:35:31

In 1v1 format:
You are expected to win the map that you choose
Your opponent is expecterd to win the map that he chooses
The match should be decided on with a 3rd round on a neutral map

Everyone that plays this game has that one map that they really like to play and showcases their talents the best. For me last season, this map was aim_arena. If someone ties me on my best map, then they are at least of equal skill to me. Then when they beat me on biohazard or zeta, they have proved that they are better than me in their home turf. no third round is needed. IN FACT, adding a third match only increases the randomness that you are trying to avoid. Becasue what if its aim_arena again. (It doesn't even have to be aim, just another map that I naturally play better than him) I work up my nerves and pull out a win. How is that fair to the other guy? He has had to play 2 matches with a huge disadvantage, even after he has proven that he can at least hold his own against me on my home map, whereas I failed to do so on his map. And now, since its only 1:1, you want him to PLAY YET ANOTHER ROUND ON MY BEST MAP??? No. No way is that ever going to be fair.

That's also why I think cal should pick 12 new tiebreaker maps every season and only release them a week before they are scheduled to be played. Then let players pick their round's map from a larger list of maps including all the faves like LD, LV, LA, Tig, aim, Bio, Avo, Caverns, killboxes, basically anything that one person can excell at and specialize in. Having LD as the final map year after year is complete BS. Hmmm... I wonder why $W (no offense) has come in first every single 4v4 season.

ninojman

2008-07-19 00:00:38

you should have heard tlc bitch and bitch when I made lostvillage the finals map in sta s2

L2k

2008-07-19 00:38:42

the_big_cheese wrote:In 1v1 format:
You are expected to win the map that you choose
Your opponent is expecterd to win the map that he chooses
The match should be decided on with a 3rd round on a neutral map

Everyone that plays this game has that one map that they really like to play and showcases their talents the best. For me last season, this map was aim_arena. If someone ties me on my best map, then they are at least of equal skill to me. Then when they beat me on biohazard or zeta, they have proved that they are better than me in their home turf. no third round is needed. IN FACT, adding a third match only increases the randomness that you are trying to avoid. Becasue what if its aim_arena again. (It doesn't even have to be aim, just another map that I naturally play better than him) I work up my nerves and pull out a win. How is that fair to the other guy? He has had to play 2 matches with a huge disadvantage, even after he has proven that he can at least hold his own against me on my home map, whereas I failed to do so on his map. And now, since its only 1:1, you want him to PLAY YET ANOTHER ROUND ON MY BEST MAP??? No. No way is that ever going to be fair.

That's also why I think cal should pick 12 new tiebreaker maps every season and only release them a week before they are scheduled to be played. Then let players pick their round's map from a larger list of maps including all the faves like LD, LV, LA, Tig, aim, Bio, Avo, Caverns, killboxes, basically anything that one person can excell at and specialize in. Having LD as the final map year after year is complete BS. Hmmm... I wonder why $W (no offense) has come in first every single 4v4 season.

How is that fair?
It's fair because you beat him twice and with out a doubt you were the better player in that match.
If it wasn't fair every single league like twl, tgl, ogl, cevo, sta, quakeconn ect would not be doing it that way.

It is the players responsibility to make sure he can play every map on this list to the best of his ability and not just rely on one map to guarantee at least one win.

If someone can find even one league or tournament that is doing it the way cal is right now, please post a link to the rule page I'd like to see it as I went through at least 30 sites found on google and saw none.

the_big_cheese

2008-07-19 01:28:53

If it wasn't fair every single league like twl, tgl, ogl, cevo, sta, quakeconn ect would not be doing it that way.

wtf are you talking about? I went to twl, tgl, ogl, cevo, and sta. I couldn't even find quakeconn, link pls. I found no 1v1 leagues on any of these sites (I could have missed something though because I didn't check every single game). Ladders don't count because they are based on a challenge system which often favors the defender. In order to even mention these sites to defend your point you need a deathmatch type game 1v1 league with a similar map selection method as cal's.

L2k

2008-07-19 02:01:31

yeah it wasnt easy to find, it took me a few hours overall searching the sites and archives of the sites. Some of the sites and leagues no longer do 1v1 and some do you just have to look.
Also it wasn't for hl2dm it was for quake 3 - 4, UT99 and 2004, PK and a few other odd games that were run in 1v1, but its still relative as that is how they did and or still do it if they have 1v1. I posted the rules for quakeconn 2007 a few posts up and the rules for qc2008 are due out any day now. I almost posted the links to each page but at expense of sounding like a broken record, I decided not to.

In every case I saw, a third round had to be played (if it was 1:1 or 1:0 tie) and if it were tied after 3 there was either overtime or another tie breaker round.

ninojman

2008-07-19 02:08:40

the_big_cheese wrote:wtf are you talking about?

he has no idea

Pretty much any league any game that you tie the first round and win the second you are the winner.

wouldn't a tie breaker only be needed if there is....get this......a tie

L2k

2008-07-19 02:52:37

ninojman wrote:
the_big_cheese wrote:wtf are you talking about?
he has no idea

Pretty much any league any game that you tie the first round and win the second you are the winner.

wouldn't a tie breaker only be needed if there is....get this......a tie

Sorry nino but you have no idea, its in black and white I posted one of many examples above.

even CAL quake 4 says you must win 2 times lol

I challenge you to find even one league with this rule, you can spend your time looking I already did.

the_big_cheese

2008-07-19 03:37:19

Ok, after thinking about it for a while, instead of pointlessly arguing heres what I got:
Playing a 3rd match has a serious potential to unfairly handicap the person who is ahead 1:0. The most reasonable solution seems to be to prevent the ties from happening in the first place. Sudden death wouldn't work because it would depend too much on random spawns. Overtime sounds good though. Keep adding time in increments of 3 minutes untill someone comes out on top. The looser can't complian, and it makes it a true best 2 out of 3. Idk if this is even possible though...

L2k

2008-07-19 04:25:55

Thank you Big Cheese, that is exactly the solution I personally would prefer and think is the most fair way. It's just stupid to think that ties have to be part of the scenario.
It would take about two mins to write a overtime.cfg and if a regulation round ends in a tie the overtime.cfg could be exec'd to have overtime rounds of 3-5 minutes (whatever is deemed most fair by the community) on the same map that was tied on.

This would solve all the problems, the ill feelings, and once and for all show a truly superior player at the end of the match.

Seagull

2008-07-19 05:51:28

3-5 minutes can beat one or two bad spawns and it's G_G, luck can be too much of a factor imo

Ko-Tao

2008-07-19 08:13:41

Seagull wrote:3-5 minutes can beat one or two bad spawns and it's G_G, luck can be too much of a factor imo

This is exactly why the overtime match/cfg concept was discarded when we discussed it in s1. Theres nothing skill intensive about a 3 minute match- the first person to get a kill just runs for 2 mins and wins, or initial spawn decides the match, or something equally random.

Only the playoffs can have more than 3 rounds, since we cant have ties there, and those extra rounds are the full 15 minutes.

L2k

2008-07-19 08:58:47

Ko-Tao wrote:
Seagull wrote:3-5 minutes can beat one or two bad spawns and it's G_G, luck can be too much of a factor imo
This is exactly why the overtime match/cfg concept was discarded when we discussed it in s1. Theres nothing skill intensive about a 3 minute match- the first person to get a kill just runs for 2 mins and wins, or initial spawn decides the match, or something equally random.

Only the playoffs can have more than 3 rounds, since we cant have ties there, and those extra rounds are the full 15 minutes.

I saw today you changed the rules to reflect that.
So during the playoffs are you still going to give the win to a player with one win and a tie or must he win two now?

svN

2008-07-19 10:12:08

L2k wrote:
I saw today you changed the rules to reflect that.
So during the playoffs are you still going to give the win to a player with one win and a TIE or must he win two now?

Ko-Tao wrote:since we cant have ties there

L2k

2008-07-19 10:13:25

nevermind, one win and a tie still wins it in the playoffs, I see it clearly now in the rules

the_big_cheese

2008-07-19 19:16:35

Err, I was talking about extending the current round instead of starting a new one. Like, if the score is tied 15-15 and there's 0:01 seconds left on the clock, a command is executed that changes timelimit to 18:00.

L2k

2008-07-19 20:16:25

doing that would be the exact same thing as starting a fresh round 0-0 on the same map with a time limit of 3 mins.

ninojman

2008-07-19 22:07:01

L2k wrote:
ninojman wrote:Sorry nino but you have no idea, its in black and white I posted one of many examples above.

even CAL quake 4 says you must win 2 times lol

I challenge you to find even one league with this rule, you can spend your time looking I already did.

http://www.caleague.com/?page=match&matchid=1368347

dods, css, hl2dm has always been like that. If it's total frags or matches one tie and one loss doesn't equal a tie

Unless there is real tie overtime isn't needed. It's not 2 of 3. It's total rounds after 2 matches. Quake/doom has Sudden death where everything is a fresh spawn and it's 1st kill. But once 0.00 comes up on the clock a round restart isn't possible, and playing for the first kill would be the best option but not worth it imo. But we can't use quake maps why should we use quake rules?

Only true ties are when You win a round and I win a round. Or if both rounds are tied. 1:1 or 0:0. 1:0 someone proved they are better. It's about not wasting time. People don't wanna be sitting around forever when someone proved that they are better. Thats the reason 4v4 and 2v2 are back to total frags. Not reason for that overtime round when the score was 148 to 100 1st round and then 135 to 136. The first team is better on that day. 30 minutes for 1v1 matches and 40 minutes for 2v2,4v4 is plenty of time. If the match is close the randomness is taken out as a factory by time each person is bound to have a bad spawn or two and it always evens out in 15 minutes.

Dallas asked me at the end of our match in which it was a tie and i said he won without blinking "I didn't win shit, so you win GG"

L2k

2008-07-19 23:34:38

nino, challenge not met!

and it cant be met because that exact wording does not exist anywhere.

This is your and a few others personal interpretation and the fact is that, wording in official rules which says a player must *win* two matches does exist in quite a few leagues including cal.

Showing me your scores and the fact that you gave a match to dallas without thinking about it, is again your personal interpretation and not the way leagues do it in general.

sayng this is how it's done in dod css and w/e means nothing, post example of rules (like I did) which proves me wrong.

ninojman

2008-07-20 00:48:52

How about you find one person in the community that agrees with you.

Showing me your scores and the fact that you gave a match to dallas without thinking about it, is again your personal interpretation and not the way leagues do it in general.

sayng this is how it's done in dod css and w/e means nothing, post example of rules (like I did) which proves me wrong.

It is the way the league does it and is the correct interpretation as the league just revised the rules to show this.

Dods,css,hl2dm are all the same if you tie then win, you win. not goto tie. not in the rules because again any idiot can figure out that this is the only fair way....Other then you

And no i'm not going through rules to find the wording thats a waste of time, like trying to tell your dumbass why it is fair 50 times by 10 different people in this thread.

But feel free to repeat the same things again without reading what other people say.

Anonymous

2008-07-20 02:33:18

I dont understand one thing L2K. You stated that you didnt want DM to be like the rest and you use Quake 3 rules as an example.
This is contradictory.

L2k

2008-07-20 02:46:54

65 Impala SS wrote:I dont understand one thing L2K. You stated that you didnt want DM to be like the rest and you use Quake 3 rules as an example.
This is contradictory.

the only thing I said impala was that I would prefer a overtime round over sudden death. sudden death means first to get a kill.

and the only reason I have to use quake and other games as an example is because it was stated that all other games and leagues did it this way, which I found to be untrue, and this is the only league running hl2dm.

I understand its a technicality based on the wording "best of three" but since a draw is worth something points wise in the grand scheme of things (seeding for playoffs) it just seems that players should get the opportunity to play 3 rounds and at least get that chance to have a draw.

L2k

2008-07-20 02:51:01

ninojman wrote:How about you find one person in the community that agrees with you.

Zman42 wrote:I vote with punk for the exact reasons he posted, its too easy in this game to barely win or lose a round then tie. we should change the rule to play a tiebreaker in that situation imo.

Now how about you learn to read all the posts

Anonymous

2008-07-20 03:01:38

Actually, L2K, i agree with you. 1 v 1's should not be subject to single point point wins in an arbitrary crashing culty game. How is winning not winning? When it is subject to question, like you have suggested.

1 v 1 should be more rigorous. It is the absolute essence of the performance of this game.
In 4 v 4 there are so many players, minutes, frags... that one point hardly enters the brain.

1 v 1 should be determinate as to the winner, however that happens.

the_big_cheese

2008-07-20 05:53:57

sorry but those games are not fubared like hl2dm is, and aside from that if the players who are in the league would prefer it to be different than that of quake ect who cares?

even CAL quake 4 says you must win 2 times lol

Give me a break!

OK so far the vote is 6-2. Sounds like the people in the league either prefer it the way it is or don't care enough to post. Your postion has been aknowledged by (as far as I can tell) every CAL official. There's really nothing left to post here.

L2k

2008-07-20 06:59:16

yeah cheese when i posted that remark you quoted I was taking their word for it that they were doing it the same as quake and every other money tournament ect.(and by posting just that little snipit you are sort of taking it out of context) But then I found out otherwise and got to thinking how it really isnt fair, esp when you take into consideration that you could be gaining something by getting a draw instead of a loss.
As a reminder, the points system used to determine playoff eligibility and seedings is as follows:
Win: 4 Points
Tie: 3 Points
Loss: 2 Points
Forfeit Win: 1 Point
Forfeit Loss: 0 Points

As I said before I had never personally been screwed over by this rule but several people who have, have complained to me about it at different times, and yeah it would be nice if they would post something about it.

Also 4 out of those 6 your referenced have been the cal admins and of course they are going to back each other up.

Paradox

2008-07-20 19:01:51

Setting up a 3 min OT sudden death is only going to set up the match to be won by a lucky spawn kill. That is only going to perptuate the problem not solve it. At least with time it can be evened out.

You are still going to get games that will be won by 1 point. When the two players are equally skilled its going to happen. No amount of OT or extra rounds are going to solve that in most cases.

If player 1 wins by one point then they tie on the next round, by forcing 3rd where player 2 wins will result in a tie overall for the match. No clear winner is established. Is that preferable? Are the extra points really the issue?

This is HL2DM. Its not Quake or any other game. We do not have to conform to other tournament rules.

The league can not be run by opinion because like assholes everyone has one and there would never be agreement on anything. We do the best we can and we can't make everyone happy.

To my knowledge the admins have not discussed this outside this board (at least not with me). Ya the admins agree with each other instead of bowing to your opinion so I guess they must be corrupt.

Fearsome*

2008-07-20 20:26:06

Wow this sat for serveral days then I go away and it blows up.

Ok L2K I see your point, I always have but there ideal and real and we need to live in real. Currently valve has no good problem free way to doing a sudden death or extended Tie breaker and with the technical difficulties that we already seem to have it seems unlikely we could get most of these players to do a more complicated system of starting a new match or trying to extend time just before the match ends. I have always had a goal of keeping matches under 1 hour so that we dont have players needing to go away in the middle of matches. 1v1 pulls this off in a max of 3 15 minute rounds. If we were talking a major even like the stanly cup then yes we would probably do a best of 7 matches on 7 different maps but here we need to deal with reality people who are not paid to play and have lives outside of the game and probably cannot hang around for the extra time. I now see the rules are not explicit what we practice in 1v1 is a Best of 3. And I guess in my entire life it seemed obvious that you don't really have to play all 3 matches if you win 2 it is over and if you win 1 and tie the next it is over. Why would I do the more dangerous solution of taking something where we had a Tie broken and introduce the chance to tie it back up and then have to go back and create a 2nd tie breaking system. I also agree with seagull that a short tie breaker round is much more luck based then the current system. In every match this season against a decent opponent I started in the hole with a bad start and in many I was able to take it back or on my way to winning most of the time it was bad spawns the other guy spawned in zeta or near a better weapon and then took the early lead and in 3 or 5 minutes I would have lost just on luck. I also think you should go explain this to some admins of other leagues and see what they say cause I think that they would not force a team to play extra rounds if the winner seemed to be already figured out. All of their rules may be just as bad as ours.

If you can come up with a better system that can keep the match under an hour and not result in extra ties then let us know. Also the only way I see really getting over your problem is to introduce some sort of system where you have to win by a certain percentage or by a number of points like tennis or something. But once again we are just introducing the chance that matches could never get out of a tie or drag out for hours. Yes luck happens but if you stay around from season to season the mass average of you skill will show and the best player always make it with in 2 positions of the spot they should be in my opinion.

Concerning the rule about ties. When we wrote that we intended for it to address regular season play in which say in 4v4 2 teams perfectly tied like 56-89 and 89- 56 scores in that case we just left it as a tie. And the same for 1v1 if I win round 1, your win round 2 and we tie round 3 then it is just a tie. However what we do in the playoffs I dont even know if that is spelled out and it needs to be as well. But my thinking was never meant to allow a clear win to be thrown back into the situation of a clear tie. IE I win round 1 you and I tie round 2 then we play round 3 and you win.

In fact I am sure alot of this is even ambiguous. but the thing is we have to draw the line somewhere there's always luck the only way to overcome it is to just crush your opponent so hard that even if he is the luckiest man on earth he cannot over come it.

L2k

2008-07-20 20:44:48

Paradox wrote:Setting up a 3 min OT sudden death is only going to set up the match to be won by a lucky spawn kill. That is only going to perptuate the problem not solve it. At least with time it can be evened out.

Your opinion, I have no problem getting more than one kill per minute esp on small maps.

Paradox wrote: You are still going to get games that will be won by 1 point. When the two players are equally skilled its going to happen. No amount of OT or extra rounds are going to solve that in most cases.

Winningby one point was never the issue at hand here as long as the player had won two rounds. What was the issue was that it was supposed to be a best of 3 and in some case a best of 2 was being used. This did not conform to the offical rules as they were written. If anything good has come of this thread at least that is fixed now.

Paradox wrote:This is HL2DM. Its not Quake or any other game. We do not have to conform to other tournament rules.

I never said you had to conform to be like other games. Ko-Tao said that CAL was doing it just like those games in respect to allowing a tie to decide a win. I just proved that wrong, and said that the generally accepted method was to make a player win two games.

Paradox wrote:The league can not be run by opinion because like assholes everyone has one and there would never be agreement on anything. We do the best we can and we can't make everyone happy.

Sure some of what I have argued is based on my opinion, but it is only because the current system is flawed and as I stated I believe the league should be fair for all and not just benefit a select few. This is the major flaw and some people just are too inept to see it or even care but it exists none the less. I can use give you a real life example based on something that has happened this season.
Herb lost a match by 6 points on a tiny little map that is highly prone to spawn kills (tig) then he ties on another tiny map (aim) now due to this rule and the fact that he was not given the opportunity to play a third round which he could have possibly won, he walked away with only 2 points for the loss. If he had played the third round and won he could have walked away with 3 points for the draw.
At the end of the regular season when all the points were tallied to see who makes the playoffs, having one less point if you were about 8th in the standings could prevent you from making the playoffs, now is that fair when it is supposed to be a best of three format and not a best of two? This system could also mean the difference between playing the top seed or the second or third in the first round of playoffs. While its true we have something called RPI, that would only come into play if the points were tied. So you see it may be my opinion that this system is flawed, but it is a opinion which is based on facts and again in my opinion is a stronger argument than saying if a OT round was done, it would likely be decided by spawn kills.

Paradox wrote:Ya the admins agree with each other instead of bowing to your opinion so I guess they must be corrupt

You said that not me

and I really don't feel that way anyway

L2k

2008-07-20 20:58:50

lol, yeah fearsome I bet you had to do double take when you came back and saw 60 replies to this. It has kind been overdone at this point I'll admit, but hey that is what this forum is for discussing things like this.

I honestly think most players may have not even known the ramifications of the way it was being done, but now its out there and if people don't like it they can complain like me.

In the end it's up to you to do what you see best, I just think that some things should be tried like OT rounds to see what happens, as I overstated winning only one round don't mean too much in this game.

Fearsome*

2008-07-20 23:24:35

L2k wrote: Sure some of what I have argued is based on my opinion, but it is only because the current system is flawed and as I stated I believe the league should be fair for all and not just benefit a select few. This is the major flaw and some people just are too inept to see it or even care but it exists none the less. I can use give you a real life example based on something that has happened this season.
Herb lost a match by 6 points on a tiny little map that is highly prone to spawn kills (tig) then he ties on another tiny map (aim) now due to this rule and the fact that he was not given the opportunity to play a third round which he could have possibly won, he walked away with only 2 points for the loss. If he had played the third round and won he could have walked away with 3 points for the draw.
At the end of the regular season when all the points were tallied to see who makes the playoffs, having one less point if you were about 8th in the standings could prevent you from making the playoffs, now is that fair when it is supposed to be a best of three format and not a best of two? This system could also mean the difference between playing the top seed or the second or third in the first round of playoffs. While its true we have something called RPI, that would only come into play if the points were tied. So you see it may be my opinion that this system is flawed, but it is a opinion which is based on facts and again in my opinion is a stronger argument than saying if a OT round was done, it would likely be decided by spawn kills.

The point of any league is to hold a competition out of which there are winners and losers. That is our ultimate goal. What you are calling for is a league where more ties is better and you think that that is better or less flawed then the current system? I would like you to logically think through every step of the process and decide who is the better player and deserves the win. I think unless you just have some odd bias or personal bad experience you will come to the decision that what we have now is the fairest option available. I personally have worked through them all and I find no problem with the current solution. I find it is most the most fair we can come up with besides adding a sudden death or short addition to the tied round both of which create new problems and layers of complication and are not supported by the games current code. Which quite frankly is not what we want to do when teams still can't seem to set up Source TVs and servers right yet.

The part that disturbs me is the comment about the current system benefiting a select few. Who are the select few and how does it benefit them? Is there some way that the current rules favors someone like me? Please explain that.

In my match Confused lost on his own map and tied on mine. He recieved the better spawn in zeta and controlled the rocket first, he lost the position and tried to run and hide, he lost the lead and it came down to a tie because he did not bother to rush electing instead to stay outside cause someone misinterpreted his explanation and said it would goto a tie breaker. I think it is perfectly fair that he was beat hands down in that situation. In herbs situation I do not know who's map was who's but I know he was unable to win in his home map in either case and therefore deserved the loss. Going on to the third map will cause a possible tie when we did not have one why you think this is better still baffles me. But lets say you feel luck was the reason for the first maps win. IMO going to the third map will introduce more luck. After all what if that map is the other players home map, what if it is the first players home map? Will that not give an unfair advantage to one player or other other? What if the map just has a particular style advantage such as long range or short range which caters to 1 player over the other? My point is simple, in close games it is always going to come down to luck adding the third map to a 1-0 situation possibly making it 1-1 just does not seem to make any logical sense to me. If you cannot win on your own map then why do you deserve to goto another round?

There are currently only 2 rare ways to end up with a tie in the current CAL.
1 player wins a round, the other wins the second and they tie the third. Rare but likely
Both players Tie all 3 round. About as likely as winning the lottery.

Anyhow I really think this argument has gone off base or is just spinning out of control. But just to see what the opinions of players are I want to hold a vote I can understand how things like map selection could be heavily opinionated but this one should not be. It should just be a logical decision. The only possible way I could see it as being corrupt is if I was wavering from one side to the other and admins were changing the rules depending on who would or would not win. But that has not happened as said my stand has always been the same since the start.

Ko-Tao

2008-07-21 00:05:40

All these situations are now clearly covered in the 1v1 ruleset.

TDM leages may need an update, though.

dirk

2008-07-21 04:16:34

Hmm that is kind of a tricky one. Looks to me that a rules update would clear it up (sorry if this has already been done and I'm just beating a dead horse). It seems like the logical thing to do to make it easiest to understand is that a player must win 2 rounds. In the event that a 2nd round ends up in a tie, you add a designated amount of overtime (lets say 5 mins). If the winner of the first round comes out ahead after the 5 mins, grats, he/she deserved to win. If the player who lost the first round wins the 2nd, he/she has earned that final 3rd round. I realize that the argument could be made the loser of the first had his/her chance in the 2nd round, but it does not prove the winner could get it done as well.

That being said, with the current rules in place, I cannot see allowing a 3rd round to be played in the event of a 1st round win and a 2nd round tie.

L2k

2008-07-21 10:50:11

Fearsome* wrote:The point of any league is to hold a competition out of which there are winners and losers. That is our ultimate goal. What you are calling for is a league where more ties is better and you think that that is better or less flawed then the current system? I would like you to logically think through every step of the process and decide who is the better player and deserves the win. I think unless you just have some odd bias or personal bad experience you will come to the decision that what we have now is the fairest option available. I personally have worked through them all and I find no problem with the current solution. I find it is most the most fair we can come up with besides adding a sudden death or short addition to the tied round both of which create new problems and layers of complication and are not supported by the games current code. Which quite frankly is not what we want to do when teams still can't seem to set up Source TVs and servers right yet.

1. I don't think more ties are better, but given that it's supposed to be a best of three and there are points to be gained by getting a tie, then yes I think you need to give that opportunity and if a tie occurs during regular season then so be it, playoffs should go until there is a winner. When this thread first started the rules were still really poorly written and it really could be interpreted the wrong way even though you had made intentions clear in other venues.

2. We are talking about a very small percentage of matches that this will effect, and albeit a small percentage I think fair is fair and it should be considered because there is also a small percentage of players who will be negatively affected by it, as it is now.

3. I really don't think having a overtime.cfg would be that difficult for people to grasp, if they can upload and exec the cal1v1.cfg they could do this as well if 3 mins is too short make it 5, alot can happen in 5 mins.

4. I have never lost a match this way, but when I see what happened to Herb, I can understand how I would be extremely frustrated at losing that match and not having a real shot at overcoming some BS that may have occurred. His opponent's home map was tig, and there are places you can stand on tig and easily rack up 6 spawn kills in a row, sometimes more and there really isnt anything you can do about it. I have played plenty of tig with Ace, PB, Ninjins and Divinty and a host of other players to know thats true. Maybe Seagull has some special trick to get out of that, but most players don't. So in a nutshell when your looking at that particular match and you take into consideration it could have been won on a streak of spawn kills do you honestly think that would show who was better or just that who got luckier with a streak of spawn kills? Does a player really deserve to win a match based on more spawn kills, does that showcase skill?
Like I said in one of the first posts with a game like this where you have the potential for bugs, glitches, and spawn kill streaks I really think you have to give ample opportunities to overcome that to both players, and 2 rounds just doesn't IMO.

Fearsome* wrote:The part that disturbs me is the comment about the current system benefiting a select few. Who are the select few and how does it benefit them? Is there some way that the current rules favors someone like me? Please explain that.

This may be hard for me to explain the way I see it but it seems like some very top tier players would benefit by only having to win one round and not be totally tested or totally prove themselves against another top tier player. As Seagull stated it is very taxing to play more rounds and perhaps that is his and others weakness. You have guys who are putting in enormous hours conditioning themselves for that big match and when you consider that a lot of top players won't give a 1v1 outside of CAL, I think CAL owes it to these players to play more rounds if a tie within two were to occur. Again it all comes down to negating all the BS that can happen and showing you got what it takes to WIN twice, be it twice over 3 or twice over 3 and OT.

Fearsome* wrote:The only possible way I could see it as being corrupt is if I was wavering from one side to the other and admins were changing the rules depending on who would or would not win. But that has not happened as said my stand has always been the same since the start.

I never said CAL was corrupt or meant to imply that, even though I have complained about this rule in the past and the way the rules were worded, that has just now been fixed and no one should get that impression now. I think the CAL admins are doing a great job and I know it is a lot of work and takes time out of your life to do. The only thing that could make hl2dm in CAL any better is if you listened to the players more, and let them be part of the decision making process to some extent when it comes to maps and rules ect.

I think I'm pretty much done with this thread now, I've said all I have to say and its starting to get repetitive but I felt like I had to answer your questions. If anyone else wants to state their opinions after taking everything into consideration that would be great. I find it funny that more than a few people have complained to me about this over the last few seasons knowing I was previously a CAL admin, but have yet to post anything about it.

herbalizer

2008-07-21 11:51:18

Hi, my name is Herbalizer and I was the victim of one tie loss (almost two) this season. After the round, I asked 2 admins and several experienced cal players what to do. And it took nearly 20 minutes just to get a straight answer from someone, my partner and I were ready to play a tiebreaker round regardless. After losing the match in this manner you feel pretty short handed, not to mention the winner misses out on possible extra points. I completely agree with everything Punk has mentioned about this rule, and I support the tiebreaker round 100%. If by some crazy chance, the tiebreaker round turns out in a tie I might consider the original rule to be in effect after the 3rd round.

Fearsome*

2008-07-21 18:39:28

How does the winner miss out on extra points? If they win they still get 4 points for the win the same they get under the current system, the loser gets 2 points for the loss. The only thing the winner misses out on is a chance to lose 1 point and end up with 3 points on Punks system.

herbalizer

2008-07-22 01:44:05

Well I guess in 1v1s there is not a point system like in 2v2 and 4v4 in case of ties in the standings. My mistake!

ninojman

2008-07-22 02:28:00

herbalizer wrote:Well I guess in 1v1s there is not a point system like in 2v2 and 4v4 in case of ties in the standings. My mistake!

rpi, and you would get more rpi for a 1:0 rather then a 2:1 or 2:0 as it is closer and didn't get that much scored on you

L2k

2008-07-22 03:23:08

ninojman wrote:
herbalizer wrote:Well I guess in 1v1s there is not a point system like in 2v2 and 4v4 in case of ties in the standings. My mistake!

rpi, and you would get more rpi for a 1:0 rather then a 2:1 or 2:0 as it is closer and didn't get that much scored on you

That would depend on what the score was and who the opponent was and how strong his rpi is, so thats not necessarily true. A higher rpi outcome could be possible depending on the situation, as well as lower.
Lets not get started on RPI though, lets just stick to the issues of ties.

ninojman

2008-07-22 19:57:17

L2k wrote:
ninojman wrote:
herbalizer wrote:Well I guess in 1v1s there is not a point system like in 2v2 and 4v4 in case of ties in the standings. My mistake!

rpi, and you would get more rpi for a 1:0 rather then a 2:1 or 2:0 as it is closer and didn't get that much scored on you

That would depend on what the score was and who the opponent was and how strong his rpi is, so thats not necessarily true. A higher rpi outcome could be possible depending on the situation, as well as lower.
Lets not get started on RPI though, lets just stick to the issues of ties.

The opponent is not a variable you can change only the score. As in my 1:0 match vs dallas brought my rpi up and his down. Bahlk dropped my rpi down a lot for going to overtime with what is now a bye. But again not something that is in my hands.

Reading news on local wrestlers at nationals this past weekend a local wrestler won Nationals on a tie. In Freestyle/Greco it is round based 2 of 3, If one of the first 2 rounds are tied they add 30 seconds (1/4th of the total round time). If it's a Tie in the 3rd round which the final match was, The win goes to the person to scored the last point. The national finals match scores were 7-4, 0-2, 1-1. Although as with most leagues 1:0 isn't possible, unless it's total frags which rounds don't count anyway.

L2k

2008-07-22 20:04:15

ninojman wrote: If one of the first 2 rounds are tied they add 30 seconds (1/4th of the total round time).

I think the more you look at different sports and games that are played with a best of 3, the more you will see that do something like this.

This example sounds fair and would mean we should add 4 mins if we followed it, as 3.75 would be 1/4 of the round time for us.

L2k

2008-07-22 20:07:38

ninojman wrote:The opponent is not a variable

By saying that I meant how strong his RPI would be, such as if it were Ace or Hertz

Fearsome*

2008-07-26 22:36:16

Did you go verify this l2k, like I said the rules may not be clearly explained since most people like me assume BO 3 is what we are doing now. Go find a CAL admin for Q4 or GGL or whatever and explain this situation and see what they say. Anyhow it would be hard to explain cause they dont have ties in other games cause the game has tie breaking functions built in. So no round every goes to a tie. Unfortunately we don't have that.

Big cheese as you say how are you going to add time? Extending the map assumes you can enter the command to extend the time just 1 second before the time runs out or it needs the system implemented by valve. If the time is close and you enter the command then a kill happens who knows. This goes back to my point about reality. If there was an easy valve implemented solution we would use it and make sure ties did not happen. (well maybe people can still do alot to make them happen). But if not why worry we already have the tie broken? Right now maybe you guys can email valve asking for a tie breaking function to be added to all rounds would be useful i think.

bahlk

2008-07-27 00:08:14

5 min ot matches till there is a winner

<kyle>

2008-07-27 01:52:39

rock paper scissors.

the_big_cheese

2008-07-27 05:13:46

Big cheese as you say how are you going to add time? Extending the map assumes you can enter the command to extend the time just 1 second before the time runs out or it needs the system implemented by valve

I'm just brainstorming here. This would only work if it was fully automated. If someone actually had to enter stuff into console during the match there's no way in hell it would work. I have no knowledge of how configs work or what their capable of, but there's plenty of people here that are and I'd like to get some input from them. Another option might be a plugin?

Zman42

2008-07-27 07:44:17

Kyle wrote:rock paper scissors.

Blasphemy

2008-07-27 14:21:24

Zman42 wrote:
Kyle wrote:just whip it out and see who is bigger.

yea agreed.

badinfluence

2008-07-28 03:30:52

Zman42 wrote:
Kyle wrote:rock paper scissors.

Rev

2008-07-29 20:33:32

Why you don't take a look at the Clans United - 1v1 rules ?

We handle it like that:

Every player picks a map of the 1v1 maplist, so they play two maps.
After 1-1, they must play the third map e.g. dm_biohazard_cal.
If it's a draw on this map too- another 5 minutes must be played on dm_biohazard_cal. (just copy the 1v1-server-config and change the timelimit to 5)
And so on... ^^

This works great !

Greetings,

Rev (CU 1v1 Main Admin)

L2k

2008-07-29 21:44:57

Rev wrote:Why you don't take a look at the Clans United - 1v1 rules ?

We handle it like that:

Every player picks a map of the 1v1 maplist, so they play two maps.
After 1-1, they must play the third map e.g. dm_biohazard_cal.
If it's a draw on this map too- another 5 minutes must be played on dm_biohazard_cal. (just copy the 1v1-server-config and change the timelimit to 5)
And so on... ^^

This works great !

Greetings,

Rev (CU 1v1 Main Admin)

Thanks Rev for that input, more or less that is how we have it in CAL right now with the exception of the 5 minute overtime in the event of a tie in the third round (which only makes sense to me)

How does CU handle a situation like this?
Player one wins round 1 with a score of lets say 10-8
Player one and player two tie on round 2 with a score of lets say 10-10
Is a third round and or a fourth round then played (if needed) in CU to make a player actually win 2 times to be declared a winner of the match, or is one round win and a tie considered good enough to declare a winner after only 2 rounds?