Re: H-AT Sniping

 

In that case perhaps I should change my previous statement to "'I'm sure MOST other admins,clans and regulars" but what ever I think the rules of using HAT are the last of our ladder/tournament's problems. I however will still limit the use of HAT in the community events I organise unless it is warranted by the need to destroy armoured vehicles on the map.

 

Fair call. What it basically boils down to in a clan match is; There are no rules.

 

Of course it is pretty unsportsmanlike to use the Hvy AT but really, unless both captains agree to it beforehand in writing, it is allowed in matches.

 

And Reevs, shush. There is no oppressive regime and I'd prefer not for someone from my clan to be making such comments

Re: H-AT Sniping

 

Fair call. What it basically boils down to in a clan match is; There are no rules.

 

Of course it is pretty unsportsmanlike to use the Hvy AT but really, unless both captains agree to it beforehand in writing, it is allowed in matches.

 

Personally, I disagree. Every match we've ([bD]) played there have been rules. Very basic rules set down so that both teams can enjoy themselves that benefit both sides so that no matter if you win or lose you have a good time.

 

Everyone hates losing, everyone hates losing even more when its due to being spawn camped or HAT'd on an infantry only map.

 

Fact of the matter is everyone hates it happening to them. Die 5-6 times in a round to someone with a rocket launcher I'll go out on a limb and say you'll "~ quit enter" pretty quickly. Have that happen all week long for a month and they aren't coming back to play for a long time.

Re: H-AT Sniping

 

Personally, I disagree. Every match we've ([bD]) played there have been rules. Very basic rules set down so that both teams can enjoy themselves that benefit both sides so that no matter if you win or lose you have a good time.

 

Hate to de-rail the thread again but I need top clear this up.

 

In a clan match there are no "set-in-concrete" rules, however captains can agree on rules before-hand to take effect within a match such as "No Hvy AT Sniping" or "No Civilian Class". It is quite a loose system but provided that both teams agree to proposed rules, it can be quite tight as well

Re: H-AT Sniping

 

Hate to de-rail the thread again but I need top clear this up.

 

In a clan match there are no "set-in-concrete" rules, however captains can agree on rules before-hand to take effect within a match such as "No Hvy AT Sniping" or "No Civilian Class". It is quite a loose system but provided that both teams agree to proposed rules, it can be quite tight as well

 

I guess that depends where you are playing and what competition it is in.

 

Unless there is some law about clan matches I have yet to read where every online game must obide with or else the participants are arrested with police knocking down their doors and taken away for interogation it really depends on who is hosting the competition and what rules they say you are to play by. Afterall, you don't go into someone elses house and take a dump on their furniture simply because you've done it elsewhere - that would be rude.

Re: H-AT Sniping

 

You are correct in saying that every place and league is different and the BigD one is different from what everybody else's is. You are also correct in saying that there is no universal rule. What we've (Spawnsta and Myself with help from Lucid, Baker 65 and Wokeye) done is compiled all the rules and discussions that have happened on the board, from there Spawnsta and I filled in the gaps with a mix of rules from various leagues that we have participated in, these include rules from Gamespace, GameArena and Internode. While the rules are simular to the rules of a vanilla ladder, we have made them very personalised for an effective PR ladder.

 

Read right the way through before you start replying, it makes more sense that way

 

Now that you know a little background of what we have done, I'll answer your comment

 

The rules that we have written up state quite clearly that there are no rules in relation to a clan match. There are codes of conduct, ethics and the other legal mumbo-jumbo but it is made clear that there are no pre-set rules within a match. Why you ask? Well, by setting down no rules but giving the team captains the ability to decide their own, the ladder becomes a lot more interesting. Nowhere else will you find a "rule" (or rather, lack there-of) like this. It effectively transforms a restrictive, stifling environment into a free-form one where anything can happen provided that both teams agree.

 

Spawnsta and I have participated in several ladders and they all had set in concrete rules which could not be broken under any circumstance. While I would love to have a system like that for BigD, there is simply not the community base-size to do so. If we set concrete rules, we'd also have to set concrete maps and concrete match sizes. The rules we have allow for any size map to be played with any size team provided both captains agree

 

On top of all this, there are core ethics like no abusive language, no hacking/cheating, no exploits ect. but those are universal so I don't think these need to be called into question. In continuation, you have to remember that we are a small community. Reputation means a lot here and if a team decides to use Hvy AT on infantry in a 16 player map, they may win but do they win the respect of thier foes? Probably not and once word gets out, people will be wary of playing them. Look what happened between the match of .pR vs >.HF.<. They used the grass-draw distance to their advantage by turning their graphics down (some did anyway) gaining an unfair advantage on us who didn't do that. I raised this concern and soon after they left/disbanded. Was it single-handedly my words? I doubt it but after that match, their name was mud.

 

So to re-iterate; No core-rules in matches but any rule can be agreed upon. So if you don't want the enemy to use Hvy AT on a 16 player map, then tell them "We'll play you provided you agree not to use Hvy AT".

 

Hopefully the end result will be a fun ladder rather than a "We have to win every match" ladder.

Edited December 3, 200717 yr by Fang

They way I look at it is with were to start a ladder with the ultimate end of one team being king of the hill bragging rights. Then like all other ladders I have ever being involved in there will be rules, record scores, negative comments ingame the usual jibber jab. I think the use of HAT should be limited in ladder matches where its infantry only, not on a case by case basis like we HAVE BEING seen how we have only had clan skirmishes with no ladder or tournament of any kind.

 

Agreeing of rules before a clan skirmish makes sense cause its for all purposes just a friendly game between to opposing clans, not a ladder match with anything at stake.

Well, the ladder has a 3 month cycle rate so after 3 months, we can quite easily change it if it doesn't work.

That's pretty much the point I was trying to make Chicken. In the other thread it just sounded like you were saying "this is how its done elsewhere - so we're doing that".

 

Considering we haven't even got the ladder off the ground yet apart from friendly matches I guess we'll just have to wait and see until it becomes a competition.

Yeah two sets of rules, if we create a ladder we will have set in stone rules.

 

Fun matches, the rules can be hashed out a few days prior to. All spec ops round for an escort map as an example. Whatever really.

Ok, I must have missed your point at some stage then. I agree with you that just because its done elsewhere, doesn't mean it needs to be done here. BigD is a very special case so trying to apply those rules would be silly.

Yeah two sets of rules, if we create a ladder we will have set in stone rules.

 

Smokey, read my previous post. If we start implementing set-in-stone rules, we have to start doing other things like set map sizes and set team sizes. We simply don't have the community size to do this

Can we see you game plan for this ladder your talking about ?

Or are you saying that we simply take our current system of not much and simply call someone the winner based on how many fights they won after 3 months ?

 

Simply put I'm kinda lost as to where this is going.

Can we see you game plan for this ladder your talking about ?

Or are you saying that we simply take our current system of not much and simple call someone the winner based on how many fights they won ?

 

Simply put I'm kinda lost as to where this is going.

 

Lucid has the current write-up, he should have posted it to the admin section by now but he's dragging his feet. Perhaps it would be best to delay this debate until everyone here knows the rules.

old should-a would-a could-a you don't work for the government do you ?

I'll get round to it I promise

Nah that's fine post em up when you have time so we can all have a good look.

Smokey, read my previous post. If we start implementing set-in-stone rules, we have to start doing other things like set map sizes and set team sizes. We simply don't have the community size to do this

 

But if there aren't set in stone rules, you could have everyone playing different games by different rules.

 

So the ladder isn't really based around a certain type of game play and the team that wins could have essentially played a totally different game to the team that comes dead last which isn't really fair.

 

One week you're playing with rule a, the next you're playing by rule b.

 

Needs to be consistent, which it can't be like this.

Yeah what Daveee said, for a ladder it must be consistant for it to be fair. After all someone will win the ladder and for everyone to be as happy as possible it has to be a fair shot.

 

My 2 cents anyway.

i think one of the first things we need to work out is do we want a ladder / tournament scrim environmment or a friendly add-hoc match every week or so.

 

or maybe a mix of both. I can see both sides but i thing they are getting mixed up. For a ladder we need some loose rules that everyone sticks to. H-AT sniping for example really would need to be in there, wether it be for or against. As you say they may win but their name could be mud.

 

In the more casual friendlies then i think the rules / regulations / code of conduct etc etc could be a little looser and captians can decide a few days before. Treat these more as a bit of fun and training.

 

We can always make up more ladders to compete in. A 10v10 no H-AT Sniping (just an example) and a 4v4 sniper war where H-AT is allowed. Really the possibilities are vast.

To Daveee and Smokey; Re-read my post. The moment we start implementing consistency, is the moment we start limiting match sizes and map sizes which we simply cannot do due to the size of the community. It is as simple as that.

 

We have 2 different types of game mode, come 0.7 or possibly 0.65, this could go up to 3 if they fix Extract. Majority of the 16 player maps are too small/ broken. If you want consistency, we'll have to set maps which can and cannot be played and then we'll have to fix match sizes as well. While consistency would be fantastic, it is not possibl to have it and sustain a ladder at the same time.

 

To Vis; Oddly enough, I do, kinda....

Like Darth said, different for scrims vs ladder matches.

 

I like the idea of a 'code of conduct' applying to all matches, with some specific rules (however few) for ladder matches, just so that one match is consistent with another - 'level playing field' and all that. Even if they are only about forfeiting, etc, to make things clear ladderwise.

 

As for maps and team sizes, I say keep that flexible. Although insurgent mode is hard to score the outcome so would have to be omitted from the ladder unless it is only about match/round win/loss.

 

As for H-AT, grass etc, I say KISS and leave it in. Avoid maps with grass. Spot and shoot teh nasty H-AT man.

Edited December 3, 200717 yr by McCloud

To Daveee and Smokey; Re-read my post. The moment we start implementing consistency, is the moment we start limiting match sizes and map sizes which we simply cannot do due to the size of the community. It is as simple as that.

 

We have 2 different types of game mode, come 0.7 or possibly 0.65, this could go up to 3 if they fix Extract. Majority of the 16 player maps are too small/ broken. If you want consistency, we'll have to set maps which can and cannot be played and then we'll have to fix match sizes as well. While consistency would be fantastic, it is not possibl to have it and sustain a ladder at the same time.

 

To Vis; Oddly enough, I do, kinda....

 

Without consistency there isn't much point in a competitive ladder IMO.

 

It just isn't fair to play games with different sets of rules.

There are set rules as in match format/scoring/conduct that need to be followed however if you start limiting kits in ladders (unless by gentlenmans agreement) etc. then you are going to find there will be disputes amoung other things.

 

There are also basic rules as chicken said regarding swearing, hacking etc. Gentlemans agreements are allowed both before and in game. These are not however going to affect the overall layout of the ladder therefore wont give another team an advantage.

 

In all the best way to sort this out is give it a go for 3 months and then put everything up for review.

 

BTW there will be consistency. Gentlemans agreements do not change the format of the ladder.

Edited December 3, 200717 yr by cann0nf0der

In all the best way to sort this out is give it a go for 3 months and then put everything up for review.

 

Exactly. You may very well find that what we have done will work. There is only one way to find out and unless we take the plunge, the ladder will never start. So, we can either sit here forever and a day discussing what to do or we can try it, see if it works and have a bit of fun in the mean-time

I'd prefer to get it right the first time, but thats just me wanting to do things properly after everyone in the community has discussed them and said whether they like them or if they could suggest something else that could be improved upon.

 

No point in doing a half arsed job!

Why is this so difficult? We've got a set of rules which I might add, nobody except the writers have seen. Nothing is perfect and nothing every will be. As for doing thing the "right" way, what's to say what we have wont work? How long do you think it took for the GA ladder to get established? It took 3 seasons before it was enjoyable, Gamespace took 4. We're not going to get this right first shot and the only way we will really iron out the kinks is if we try it and identify what is actually wrong rather than what may be wrong

Chicken, when your ready it would be great to postem up so we the community could comment on, implement any changes that are needed then give them a go. H_ATs off to you and CO for putting it into motion. Good job.

 

You dont want to run it do you?