Community > Community Events

Should Competitive Matches move toward Capture Point?

<< < (2/7) > >>

GeoRmr:
Why doesn't desert scrap have a 2v2 or 4v4 variant?

Dimometer:
It seems to me, that the OP is asking the wrong question (Should Competitive Matches move toward Capture Point?). As a competitive scene is made up of teams who compete in competitions, I would sggest therefore, the correct questions are:

•   What are the priorities of the competition organisers (and competitors)?

Are the priorities entertainment, fun, high/mid/low level play etc...

•   How should these priorities affect the rule set or structure of the competition?

For example, very long matches were not practical in competitive play with streamers and players because they were boring to spectators, hard to commentate and impractical for organising tournaments with a large amount of games in a short amount of time.

In the OP's complaint, no-score draw matches with very little action are boring to spectators and that something should be done. The OP then goes on to state "the only way, right now to guarantee non stop action in this game, and a winner within a reasonable time without artificial, kept outside of the game, timers, is by playing capture point." This is wrong.

 If a competition organiser wishes to set up a competition where the OP's scenario was to be discouraged, it can be done through the rule set of the tournament. Now I am not going to be prescriptive, I am merely pointing out some examples.

In rugby, teams gain more points in the league by scoring more trys in a match. This suggests that teams could be ranked not just on a win/loss ratio but also upon the number of kills they achieve. It would also be possible to penalise teams for failing to score a point which would encourage teams to be less passive. 

In Golf (Ryder cup), teams play different versions of the game (four ball etc..) in order to provide variety into a competition. This means that a tournament could involve not just death match but also capture the flag, or even other crazier elements (squid racing).

I think that these sort of discussions are best left to the individual competition organisers, who have their own priorities for the competitions they wish to run.

RomanKar:
Your rugby analogy fails from the start.  Rugby is a great game to start with.  30 guys find a field and play, and people show up to watch.  No league, barely a scoreboard, not even an announcer, though the chap next to you may have to explain a thing or two.
No league rules for extra points in the league for scoring 4 tries.  No standings in the New Zealand conferance on the line, places in the playoffs, or all that other stuff that is really off the field of play.  As a matter of fact, one of the highest levels of play are the international tours.  3 games, Winner gets a Trophy.  None of that other crap I mentioned.  It's all on the field of play.  League rules, and in chat timers won't make the game better.

I'm talking about the game.  Pure and simply, played at the highest level.  And we should debate as a community of competitive players, spectators, organizers, developers (thanks the gods for this), streamers, referees, Clan Leaders, those just trying to get started in the competitive scene, and salty old birds. 

We all know the dominant mode for competitive play is Deathmatch.  I'm not a fan, under all those categories I qualify for in the above list.  The only proof I need is that when I bring up capture point for competitive play, ONE, 1, tournament came to everyone's minds. 

Deathmatch is the default.  I think that needs to change.

Dimometer:
The Rugby union bonus point system is an example of a sport creating a set of rules, parallel to the rules on the pitch, in order to encourage an attacking style of play and attempt to score more points. This would have been done for the particular priorities of those who designed the system in the first place. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugby_union_bonus_points_system)

Another example is the qualification for the FIFA world cup, teams are seeded according to their rankings when the draw for qualification groups are made. It doesn't have to be this way, the qualification draw could be entirely random. FIFA chose for the tournament to be run their way for their own particular priorities (no matter how nefarious they might be).

This is the point I am trying to make; it is the responsibility of whomever organises a tournament to make clear their own priorities concerning the creation of a tournament with all relevant parties when forming  a rule set for the tournament.

You state that "Death match is the default. I think that needs to change." I think that is great, if you want a tournament which is not just death match, then create one. The community will be richer for it and you will get to play and watch games that you want to.

RomanKar:
Ok. Future Hapheastus Challenges and Sunday Skirmishes should be run with something other than DeathMatch.  I am formally requesting a format change that eliminates Deathmatch in favor of Capture point.  I appeal to those organizers directly, here, now.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page