SCS Rules

[Spud Nick]

I think we can make the overtime rule in the SCS more clear for everybody to follow. We can also remove the rule about "first kill advantage" because it's only necessary in the event of a tie game. This is what I suggest we change.

1. If a match runs out of time and is tied, the team which scored the first kill of the match wins (does not apply to Round Robin format).
The referee is responsible for determining which kill is the first if a mutual kill is made (they can make this determination from the game ticket reader).
1. If both teams are tied at the end of regulation play, the game continues in overtime.

2. If there is a running engagement (same definition as for pause calling) when the normal match time runs out, the game will continue in overtime.
- Overtime lasts at maximum 3 minutes.
 - Overtime ends when the engagement ends



SCS Rules

[Guagadu]

In general, I would agree with this change to overtime. While most matches won't benefit from this, there are a select few where this could have changed the entire result, giving a team a sliver of a chance to get back into it, making for a very exciting match. Overtime is already rare enough that this wouldn't take too much time.

However, we would still not be able to get rid of first kill advantage. If a match is still a tie at the end of the overtime, this would be the only way to decide victory.

[GurasOguras]

What this rule would do is effectively add those few more minutes to the regular play. Why not make the match 23 minutes long then? It would be the same. Hence I see no logic behind your suggestion. How do we resolve tied games if you want to remove the first kill advantage from the competition?
Long and very passive games are boring for the viewer. The teams must resolve the match in 20 minutes as the tournament must keep going. First kill advantage puts pressure on the losing team to act up. One of the biggest dick moves of competitive play is to escape from the engagement and abuse the timer rules. It would be unfair to the team, which does not have the upper hand could escape their destiny instead of confronting with the opponent. That would hurt the players wanting to fight, but unable to keep up with fleeing enemy.
I know that I'm always theorizing too much, but I believe that The rules must be free from any possibility of their abuse.

I'm going to assume two situations and show you on the example:

In case 1 (current rules) Team A got the first kill advantage. Team B now must attack and dominate Team A or they will lose the game. If Team B can prove that they're better, the win will be theirs, otherwise, if they are worse than team A, the team A will win.

In situation 2 (Spud Nick's proposition) The game is tied. Team A knows where they have made their mistake and wanted to confront Team B again. Team B is weaker, so they choose to be dicks and escape. The regular time ends and we get into overtime (Team A got the first frag, but it doesn't matter anymore). After that, the game is being resolved with coinflip just like in every case of the tie and Team B wins. Team B in this situation instead of inevitable defeat has the chance of 50/50 to win the match still by abusing the rules.

To be very honest there is no perfect solution to the escaping as the winning team (in case the game is not tied) could still escape, but in such situation the team which is better and was able to score in the initial engagement still wins. This sentence is correct because it is possible to win an engagement without even losing any permahull; hence the better team is the winner.
Summarizing:

Current rules: Winner is always the better team
Spud's proposition: If you're weaker than the opponent just be dick, and you still have 50/50 chance to win.

That's why first kill advantage can't be removed.

[Spud Nick]

What this rule would do is effectively add those few more minutes to the regular play. Why not make the match 23 minutes long then? It would be the same. Hence I see no logic behind your suggestion. How do we resolve tied games if you want to remove the first kill advantage from the competition?
Long and very passive games are boring for the viewer. The teams must resolve the match in 20 minutes as the tournament must keep going. First kill advantage puts pressure on the losing team to act up. One of the biggest dick moves of competitive play is to escape from the engagement and abuse the timer rules. It would be unfair to the team, which does not have the upper hand could escape their destiny instead of confronting with the opponent. That would hurt the players wanting to fight, but unable to keep up with fleeing enemy.
I know that I'm always theorizing too much, but I believe that The rules must be free from any possibility of their abuse.

I'm going to assume two situations and show you on the example:

In case 1 (current rules) Team A got the first kill advantage. Team B now must attack and dominate Team A or they will lose the game. If Team B can prove that they're better, the win will be theirs, otherwise, if they are worse than team A, the team A will win.

In situation 2 (Spud Nick's proposition) The game is tied. Team A knows where they have made their mistake and wanted to confront Team B again. Team B is weaker, so they choose to be dicks and escape. The regular time ends and we get into overtime (Team A got the first frag, but it doesn't matter anymore). After that, the game is being resolved with coinflip just like in every case of the tie and Team B wins. Team B in this situation instead of inevitable defeat has the chance of 50/50 to win the match still by abusing the rules.

To be very honest there is no perfect solution to the escaping as the winning team (in case the game is not tied) could still escape, but in such situation the team which is better and was able to score in the initial engagement still wins. This sentence is correct because it is possible to win an engagement without even losing any permahull; hence the better team is the winner.
Summarizing:

Current rules: Winner is always the better team
Spud's proposition: If you're weaker than the opponent just be dick, and you still have 50/50 chance to win.

That's why first kill advantage can't be removed.

I think that is fair. If both teams are tied at the end of regulation play the game continues in overtime for another 3 minutes. If both teams are tied at the end of overtime the team with the first kill wins.

[Guagadu]

Maybe a better alternative would be to have overtime end upon the first kill. This would decrease the chance that a match is decided on first kill advantage, though first kill would still need to be recorded.

Another alternative to this would be to end whenever both ships from one team are dead at once.

At this point, I'm just throwing out some ideas. I personally like the current overtime rules, but I admit they can be a bit confusing at times. As a referee I can say this: It is annoying to have an overtime, because I don't want to call an overtime or end to an overtime where it could appear I am favoring either team.

[Spud Nick]

Maybe a better alternative would be to have overtime end upon the first kill. This would decrease the chance that a match is decided on first kill advantage, though first kill would still need to be recorded.

Another alternative to this would be to end whenever both ships from one team are dead at once.

At this point, I'm just throwing out some ideas. I personally like the current overtime rules, but I admit they can be a bit confusing at times. As a referee I can say this: It is annoying to have an overtime, because I don't want to call an overtime or end to an overtime where it could appear I am favoring either team.

I think overtime should only be called in the event of a tie game. I also think the rules about active engagements should be removed because it's not fair for the wining team. Yes it's annoying to surrender during an active engagement that could give your team a win, but it's still not fair for the other team that has already secured the lead.

I also think we should replace the first kill advantage with OT because it makes more sense. If both teams are tied at the end of regulation play the game will continue in OT until one team has a kill count advantage. Best case scenario would be that one team secures the kill count advantage before OT ends. Worst case scenario is that no team is able to get a kill in OT and another OT must be called. Extending the match time further and making other teams wait. Because we have two streams and less than 8 teams signing up for the SCS I don't think this will be an issue.

[Guagadu]

If both teams are tied at the end of regulation play the game will continue in OT until one team has a kill count advantage. Best case scenario would be that one team secures the kill count advantage before OT ends.

While I would like to see this being possible, there are a select few examples where this could literally take forever. Take this match for example, it would have taken much longer without an overtime, and it already felt almost boring. Infinite overtime would also take away the requirement for teams to play aggressively, and matches might take a lot longer.

[Solidusbucket]

The match time could be reduced to 15 minutes with two 5 minute over times if needed. First kill advantage goes away and the first team to have more kills during overtime (or at end of initial 15 minutes) wins.  Coin flip if still tied at end of 10 minutes of overtime.


This keeps the match times at a reasonable length.
It promotes aggressive behavior
It allows conservative tactics
It gets rid of the subjective rule of "mid engagement"

[-DARK-KNIGHT-]

I like all of the rules that are in the SCS right now. I think it's important to understand that the rules are for the viewers as well as the players participating. Keep your matches interesting and entertaining.

[Sir Steffen]

I like all of the rules that are in the SCS right now. I think it's important to understand that the rules are for the viewers as well as the players participating. Keep your matches interesting and entertaining.

compleely agree.

i think that it is even more importand that the matches just stay respect full and that people just accapt that thay lost a round and dont start complaing about the rules.

[Spud Nick]

I like all of the rules that are in the SCS right now. I think it's important to understand that the rules are for the viewers as well as the players participating. Keep your matches interesting and entertaining.

compleely agree.

i think that it is even more importand that the matches just stay respect full and that people just accapt that thay lost a round and dont start complaing about the rules.

I agree, any discussion about the rules should be looked at carefully and clearly. I don't think the rules should give any team or play style the advantage in a match and I think the rules about overtime can be made more clear. First kill advantage was added when the match timer was added to declare a winner in case of a tie game.

Most sports will have overtime when both teams are tied at the end of regulation play. It's very rare to see the team with the first score win the game when there is a tie.

[GurasOguras]

With current rules the overtime is happening, when at the end of regulation play the teams are engaged, therefore allowing for possible comeback.

No engagement: No overtime and first kill wins
Engagement: The overtime lasts until one team will lose the engagement, teams will disengage or after 3 minutes.

I don't see a reson to change that. Anyone disagree?

[Spud Nick]

With current rules the overtime is happening, when at the end of regulation play the teams are engaged, therefore allowing for possible comeback.

No engagement: No overtime and first kill wins
Engagement: The overtime lasts until one team will lose the engagement, teams will disengage or after 3 minutes.

I don't see a reson to change that. Anyone disagree?

I don't think giving the losing team a chance to win is the proper use of overtime. You don't see overtime used that way in any other sport or game and I don't think it has a place in SCS.

[Solidusbucket]

I think the idea came from soccer / football where stoppage time is a thing. It was also suggested on here because if how close games could be and how exciting they were only for a ref to tell a team to surrender (mid engagement). Most of the controversy surrounding the SCS overtime rule  (initially) revolved around what an active engagement actually is.