Community > Community Events

Sunday Community Skirmish Tiebreaker Rules change

(1/3) > >>

Lueosi:
Hi competitive folks! Currently we have a the coin toss rule to decide a tied match. Obviously nobody likes matches decided by a coin toss so I'd like to propose a tiebreaker match.

Duel at Dawn 10min time limit, first kill, first part destruction on tie.


Another thing i thought about were matches without progression. If the match is tied by score and all captains agree, the match ends and a tiebreaker match gets played. I'm just thinking about the last SCS Firnfeld match when both teams hesitated to engage to not lose their positioning advantage. In that case the team captains could have called for a tie and played a more interesting match for viewers and players.

What do you think about those two ideas?

Velvet:
well if you have 15 mins to spare anyway, (added 5 for lobby move) just give a time extension to avoid the tie in the first place.

Skrimskraw:
what if the duel match ends up 0-0?

I dont think this rule has any significance anyway, how often does a 0-0 match show up?
also if this is the case and you dont like the map you are on, this rule could be used to your own advantage by corner camping with heavy artillery for 20 minutes.

Extirminator:

--- Quote from: Skrimskraw on July 07, 2015, 12:18:53 pm ---what if the duel match ends up 0-0?

I dont think this rule has any significance anyway, how often does a 0-0 match show up?

--- End quote ---



--- Quote from: Lueosi on July 07, 2015, 11:51:38 am ---Duel at Dawn 10min time limit, first kill,first part destruction on tie.

--- End quote ---

About the specific map, I don't really like having it be ALWAYS duel. Since duel is a really close range map and if your team is better at long range stuff than close range you are at a clear disadvantage. I thought about just having it another random map, but that could mean that any picked map can be a map oriented heavily towards either long or close range which just repeats the same point.

I asked lu why duel at dawn and he said that it was because it promoted engagements and is very likely to not end up with no kill after 10 minutes of match.

The point of having a map that encourages engagements is an important one, and so does a map that is balanced in the sense of not promoting any particular range of engagements or playstyle with a noticeable balance of even sides and opportunities for both red and blue. I think its really hard to find a map like this, which is why it could be problematic to implement this kind of rule.
Personally I am torn if we should let this through or not because of this reason.


About the second idea with teams calling a tie breaker if its not going anywhere, I think it's really unlikely it will come to this, and even if it will, I expect it to go the same way like when you want to finish a match quick and both sides agree on finishing it, but for ego reasons no team wants to be the one that surrenders and thus "lose" the game. I think both teams will acknowledge the need for a tie breaker, but no team will step forward and ask the other one for a tie - because it indirectly displays the acceptance of defeat.
Not saying it'll be a bad idea, but it most likely will rarely be ever used because of team ego and pride.

Dementio:
I somehow don't like the idea of an extra game on the map dawn with only 10min of playtime, but it seems very reasonable and ok-ish.

However, I completely disagree with how the first destroyed component makes a difference. Aside from disable builds potentially having an easier time, there might be cloud issues where one team can see the other, but not the other way around, resulting in and unfair early advantage.

Counter proposal: If there is a 0-0 tie, which means no team got the first kill to win a game in a tie, both teams lose. At the very least, it should be the rule for the extra Tiebreaker Duel at Dawn match, if it ends up in a 0-0.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page