Community > Community Events

Sunday Community Skirmish #56 (Signups for Sunday June 21st)

<< < (9/10) > >>

Alistair MacBain:

--- Quote from: Skrimskraw on June 23, 2015, 09:31:55 am ---different referees make mistakes constantly, from forgetting to time the matches, to keeping an eye on chat.

--- End quote ---

I am pretty sure you thought about me there ...

And as a former organizer myself. We thought about alot of different things aswell on how to handle timed out matches in the elimination phase. There just is NO fair way of handling this. You can always argue for the one or other thing and there will always be a situation where one is better than the other.
There is just no way of handling this thats fair for everyone.

Sammy B. T.:
Let me make the case for last kill instead of first kill.

First the issues of first kills.

The first kill isn't representative of any major advantage. It literally puts the game at 1-0, at best 2-0. This still means the team needs to win two more engagements.
First kill encourages passive play. Once you get it, you have a significant advantage and incentive to play very defensively.
Why does it matter how well you played in the beginning, come backs should be rewarded, not thrown more hurdles.

Now the benefits of last kill.
More representative of momentum. Kills often make more kills happen, especially late match. I'm sure I'm not alone but for me 4-3 and 4-4 are basically the same level of being tied as they're both one engagement away for game end.
It is more dynamic. Have the advantage able to go to either team at any point in the match makes it harder to use the advantage.


Come do a thought experiment with me. Imagine you have two rewards. One is you can start a competitive match with an extra kill so 1-0. Or partially through the match you can get an extra kill going from a 2 to a 3 or 3 to a 4. While technically both options are the same 1 point, I think the second option is clearly better. Why? Because later kills mean a lot more for determining the outcome of a game than earlier kills

BlackenedPies:
But there is the argument that for last kill if two ships are killed and the game is tied (ex 2-4 to 4-4) then the other team respawns at full health while you may have damage. Last kill would make sense if one ship was killed to tie before timer ends, but I'd prefer an overtime if ships are in combat.

I think first kill is ok but stopping the match within 30 seconds of a kill doesn't make sense. If ships are in combat at the end add a brief overtime. If it's not done by then call the match.

nanoduckling:
As Blackened said, none of the options are good. I've been in matches that either were or could have easily have turned into any of the situations outlined. To know which one is better you need to do an analysis with actual numbers and proper operationalisations of the concepts involved, thought experiments aren't going to cut it.

As for 'if the ships are engaged, add a set amount of time', if that rule is introduced I am never refereeing a match, it would be like giving referees a ready wrapped time bomb. The situation is bad enough with the current pause rule without referees having to make subjective calls about what constitutes an engagement that will very likely determine a match. As far as I'm concerned the rules should be something that can be determined by a computer recording the match, or shouldn't be on the books in the first place.

BlackenedPies:
If a ship is shooting another that's an engagement. For example, if ships are hitting within the last 30 seconds of timer then add 30 seconds. It can be difficult to get a long range kill in 30 seconds so it would encourage closing distance.

It wouldn't be a judgement call if it was based on hits (or component destruction) at a set time before timer end.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page