Community > Community Events
Sunday Community Skirmish #26 (Signups for Sunday 2nd November)
Skrimskraw:
--- Quote from: Dementio on October 29, 2014, 02:33:21 pm ---
--- Quote from: Velvet on October 29, 2014, 02:10:02 pm ---- A team cannot surrender if doing so will cause the end of their Bo3.
--- End quote ---
I am sceptical about this.
--- End quote ---
It basicly means, that you arent allowed to surrender if you are in game 3 of the best of 3.
its not good for streaming if games are being cut short. Ofcourse we arent going to beat teams down if they want to throw their best of 3, just ask the ref and we'll decide.
We dont want to turn surrendering into a legitimately tactical way to win, so we are just protecting the event, and the streamers from games being cut short.
Velvet:
Over concerns the previous wording of this rule isn't entirely clear it's being reworded to: "A team may not surrender if their surrender will result in them losing a Bo3."
Dementio:
Making sure that the audience has something to watch is ok.
If it is ok even when the SCS gets (almost) pointlessly delayed, because one team can't surrender if they so desire is up to debate. Considering that the SCS can turn out to be rather late for european players, a delay for the audience's sake is totally justified (<- slight sarcasm).
Another thing up for debate is how the team feels that wants to surrender that one match out of 3, but isn't allowed to. For the audience 1 match is cut short, yes, but it's not the only match to watch is there? And isn't there a slight chance that there is a match directly after the surrendered one, which means there is close to no difference for the audience with the exception of mild disappointment? For the team, however, they have to deal with unnecessary bad moral "We are going to lose this, let's surrender and go to the next map." "But wait! We are not allowed to, remember?" "Let's just suiced for 5 minutes then.", is something that could be a thing, I imagine.
--- Quote from: Skrimskraw on October 29, 2014, 03:31:38 pm ---we are just protecting the event, and the streamers from games being cut short
--- End quote ---
In which I conclude my above stated opinion:
There is little difference for the audience, mild disappointment at worst.
The unability to surrender could unnecessarily delay the matches for the poor european players or simply create bad moral for a team, in which said team might just give up this whole SCS thing in the worst case, which could be avoided easily.
--- Quote from: Skrimskraw on October 29, 2014, 03:31:38 pm ---We dont want to turn surrendering into a legitimately tactical way to win.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: Velvet on October 29, 2014, 04:33:06 pm ---"A team may not surrender if their surrender will result in them losing a Bo3."
--- End quote ---
If I am not mistaken this means: In order to make to make sure that surrendering doesn't turn into a legitimately tactical way to win, you make a rule which says that the surrendering team can't lose a Bo3 through surrender? This sounds a bit strange.
And why can't they lose through a surrender? Isn't this what surrender is?
Skrimskraw:
We had some feedback regarded towards the possibility of surrendering being a usefull tool if we didnt make some sort of rule in that matter.
Personally I proposed the no surrender within the first 15 minutes of game time, the reasoning behind this is that it´s both a let down for the team winning, the streamers/casters aswell as for us the organization when teams dont want to finish their match.
the rule about giving the other team 5 kills were proposed by lueosi through a conversation with me. The reasoning here was to prevet last game of best of 3 to be thrown. Lets say that first map its 5-1 to team A, next map its 3-3, last map Team A is down 4-0 but manages to get 2 kills, meaning they reach a total of 7-6 kill difference, and they just surrender in order to progress. this is something we do not wish to be part of our event, we had no rules for or against it prior, we do now.
the rule about not surrendering the last match is to uphold the standard of the games we have had so far. Teams are getting more and more concious about the ability to surrender, which by itself is a totally legitimate thing to do if you want to save extra time, but other than that we feel as if it is unfair to everyone participating or viewing.
It is a fairly long event, but through the weeks we have managed to cut down on time immensely through faster and more efficient organization, aswell as teams helping us staying true to the time limits. I think its fair rulings that we to a large extent disallow surrendering.
lets say a team has 3 players drop midgame, they are not coming back. No the referee is not going to say keep playing. If the team this happens to at this point decides to throw in the towel and call it a day, We will say that this is fine. But we really dont expect any teams to give up even if they are down 0-4 in the defining game, unless there is a really big reason for this.
This event was never intented to be the pinacle of high competitive play. Insinuating that other participating teams are just upholding the event from progressing is not something that goes through our mind. We are doing this for the teams, all of them, not just the winning ones.
Mean Machine:
I'd say I'm leaning towards "not able to surrender" option. Because not being able to surrender is another tactic by its own to use for winning team. Let's say team A is in 4:0 lead. Now, they can decide what tactic to use. Do they want to finish this fast and get the last kill so they will have more time left for next match or do they think that less time for next match would benefit them? (example: they lost 5:1 one match but won 5:0 second match, so they have more kills = which means win in a case of tied Bo3) If so, team A could play that match defensive and wait for enemy to approach, since they are forced to make a move because they are losing (even if they know they will lose they might want to finish it off asap to save more time for next match).
I hope this makes any sense :D
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version