Guns Of Icarus Online
Community => Community Events => Topic started by: Caylin on November 03, 2013, 06:39:01 pm
-
well, us and the rhinos killed the rumble today, so i suggest a rule change of no merc/artemis :P
-
That's an unrealistic rule, as is timers that are less then the game's set one. If anything it'll send people away. While im not sure how organizers could "fix" it, artificial rules like that won't do much of anything.
-
What exactly happened in the Rumble today? The bracket doesn't really help clarify.
-
The Gents/SIR match took three hours. Both MNS and Thralls dropped out.
Timeout rules are in consideration.
-
Oh dear.
The way I see it, imposing a build-limiting rule would only serve to make matches more artificial, with teams being forced into certain playstyles. It's probably better to point out to Muse that there may be a balance issue with sniper builds here.
-
The way I see it, imposing a build-limiting rule would only serve to make matches more artificial, with teams being forced into certain playstyles. It's probably better to point out to Muse that there may be a balance issue with sniper builds here.
The issue might not even be the balance snipers though...we didn't see the game drag on due to snipers zoning out close-range ships. We saw the game drag out as two sniper compositions battled for supremacy, turning the game into a huge extend positioning festival.
-
well, us and the rhinos killed the rumble today, so i suggest a rule change of no merc/artemis :P
I resent the use of the term Merc, MeXHowitzer 4ever.
As for build rules, I'm in agreement that limiting weapons is a no-no, how do we fix it? Urz has suggested time out rules which I believe to be the best idea.
-
How about zero spawn camping. If you are going to snipe be mobile, if you want that brawl ambush, set it up else where.
The reason I have an issue with sniping in competitive matches came to pass today. Turns out my chat message of completing a Kerbin > minmus > Mun > Kerbin > kerbol mission was more than accurate.
-
Any additional rule would have to be very clearly defined in a way that it was not dependent on referee judgement.
-
I nearly peed myself laughing so hard at Brick in game 2. Seriously that nooooo! was worth it. I'm sorry if viewers were bored. But as Urz pointed out, these sniper games are actually a great example of high level teamwork, gunnery, and positioning awareness. It's not as flashy as a brawl charge, but nevertheless it is still an equal side of Icarus, and a highly skilled and highly trained one at that. If you start putting time constraints, spawn restraints, gun restraints, you are severely limiting the options and diversity of this game. I have no problem in the future saying as Brick did, the winner of one match is the winner, if it takes an hour plus, but I'd leave it at that. Otherwise you're disrespecting the amount of training we put into our style, and the pre game thought and strategy in our positioning.
Also, thank you for recognizing the horribleness of Michael Bay. He is my arch nemesis, a bane upon society and the film industry as a whole.
-
"Otherwise you're disrespecting the amount of training we put into our style, and the pre game thought and strategy in our positioning."
I'm sorry but 1 hour is still far to long in a tournament situation where others are waiting on you.
3 Hours is disrespectful IMHO to both the spectators and the other competitors.
I have a great deal of respect for the skill involved in sniping... to get it right takes practice BUT if sniping results in the collapse of a tournament, or is to the detriment of the competitive scene well, i'm sorry but I don't see the point of ut.
-
I have a great deal of respect for the skill involved in sniping... to get it right takes practice BUT if sniping results in the collapse of a tournament, or is to the detriment of the competitive scene well, i'm sorry but I don't see the point of it.
I agree somewhat: the fact that timing out the other team's ability to play resulted in a tournament win was, I feel, a fairly poor outcome and, as a first-time spectator of the Sunday Rumble, I was both irritated and disappointed by the result.
Perhaps a good approach would be to set time-limits for the entire set of 3 matches. So, say, you get a maximum of 1.5 hours (or whatever) for 3 games. When the time elapses, the team that is ahead (if the game is unfinished) gets the win. In the case of a tie, a coin is flipped.
-
I nearly peed myself laughing so hard at Brick in game 2. Seriously that nooooo! was worth it. I'm sorry if viewers were bored. But as Urz pointed out, these sniper games are actually a great example of high level teamwork, gunnery, and positioning awareness. It's not as flashy as a brawl charge, but nevertheless it is still an equal side of Icarus, and a highly skilled and highly trained one at that. If you start putting time constraints, spawn restraints, gun restraints, you are severely limiting the options and diversity of this game. I have no problem in the future saying as Brick did, the winner of one match is the winner, if it takes an hour plus, but I'd leave it at that. Otherwise you're disrespecting the amount of training we put into our style, and the pre game thought and strategy in our positioning.
Also, thank you for recognizing the horribleness of Michael Bay. He is my arch nemesis, a bane upon society and the film industry as a whole.
this is exactly why this patch was allowed to ruin this game that I love so much
-
Rumor mill claims a hotfix is coming as soon as Monday to address some of these concerns.
-
Sorry you do not appreciate our play style, but it is just a part of GOIO as any other build. If you discriminate against certain types of builds, and start dictating to others how they should play a game, I don't think we will compete at the Rumble or any event in which play is dictated. I may not always like how hockey teams play, but alas I do not control their coaching or their outcomes and I understand I am merely choosing to spectate a world much larger than my own. I for one was thoroughly engaged during the matches, as well as watching the replay. There was a lull at the end of game 2. I can understand fatigue on the part of the commentators, but for us up until end the game was an extremely intense series of gunning and jockeying for superior positioning. Maybe the commentators didn't impart or didn't know the amount of intensity we felt down there to you guys, but it's hardly boring. We're not down there sipping tea and lazily taking pot shots. It's constant focus and talking between crew and captain, captain and captain. Syncing movements, coordinating baiting, flanks, when to hit and where.
I would also like to point out that you have about 13 somewhat active teams right now, most of which brawl. In almost any game, in almost any tournament you watch brawling. Doesn't that get boring?! It's the same old. I've watched it. We are trying to bring back another style of the game, and we've been doing it long before this patch. Again, you may not like it, or appreciate it, but it is a valid form of this game and one that takes a high level of skill and communication. Isn't that why people watch competitive, to see a higher level of skill? I thoroughly enjoy re-watching and seeing how both teams were fighting for any minor edge and constantly testing each others skill, and fortitude. So you may not have enjoyed it, but that doesn't make it invalid way to compete.
-
Sorry you do not appreciate our play style, but it is just a part of GOIO as any other build. If you discriminate against certain types of builds, and start dictating to others how they should play a game, I don't think we will compete at the Rumble or any event in which play is dictated. I may not always like how hockey teams play, but alas I do not control their coaching or their outcomes and I understand I am merely choosing to spectate a world much larger than my own. I for one was thoroughly engaged during the matches, as well as watching the replay. There was a lull at the end of game 2. I can understand fatigue on the part of the commentators, but for us up until end the game was an extremely intense series of gunning and jockeying for superior positioning. Maybe the commentators didn't impart or didn't know the amount of intensity we felt down there to you guys, but it's hardly boring. We're not down there sipping tea and lazily taking pot shots. It's constant focus and talking between crew and captain, captain and captain. Syncing movements, coordinating baiting, flanks, when to hit and where.
I would also like to point out that you have about 13 somewhat active teams right now, most of which brawl. In almost any game, in almost any tournament you watch brawling. Doesn't that get boring?! It's the same old. I've watched it. We are trying to bring back another style of the game, and we've been doing it long before this patch. Again, you may not like it, or appreciate it, but it is a valid form of this game and one that takes a high level of skill and communication. Isn't that why people watch competitive, to see a higher level of skill? I thoroughly enjoy re-watching and seeing how both teams were fighting for any minor edge and constantly testing each others skill, and fortitude. So you may not have enjoyed it, but that doesn't make it invalid way to compete.
i agree play style should not be dictated in any form
a time limit PERHAPS but certainly not a disallowing of any play style!
with that aside long drawn out matches that take 3 hours are generally accepted as boring and is not good for viewership. as the NHL(which you referenced) knows, and that is why it is constantly tweeking rules and equipment (smaller goalie pads, mulling over wider nets) things to get more entertaining games(i.e. more offense)...
-
That's an interesting point. However the pads have only gotten bigger, and the nets smaller. This has made offense even harder, the games closer, and the skill level required higher. Kind of applicable suppose. Like I said, if we take an hour in a game I don't mind if that's the only game we play instead of 2 or 3. But we should be given respect in that game to allow it to progress at our pace.
As an observation for the streamers, when we are in drawn out long range battles, the camera was usually focused far from the battle in a general overlook of all 4 ships. I think that disengages the viewers from the battle. If you focus on each individual ship and watch our movements, you'll give the audience a view of how much action is actually going on, and the flurry of activity on each ship as we test each other. There was so much going on there that they didn't get to see, and they may be adding to the frustration. Hop from ship to ship, show them what each ship is doing.
-
It is critical within sniping match-ups that the accuracy of shots is high, so the dps is high enough to kill their target. However, when you consider the damage output of the hades and the amount of missed hades shots when the target ship was just about to die, it would seem that as teams get better at using the hades, it will be less likely that games will near this length again.
-
It is critical within sniping match-ups that the accuracy of shots is high, so the dps is high enough to kill their target. However, when you consider the damage output of the hades and the amount of missed hades shots when the target ship was just about to die, it would seem that as teams get better at using the hades, it will be less likely that games will near this length again.
This is true. As Urz pointed out, we were using a brand new build. We actually had been prepping it for use against the Paddling's build. I didn't put as much thought going into the first match as I should have. In the second game the Hades went back to the close range side of my junker, and I replaced it on the long range side with a merc. That gave me more punch, but the triple artemi was hard to battle. Being new to using the junker in long range games, I hadn't considered a trifecta as I knew previously that the hades arc wouldn't sync with it. After reviewing the match I now have triple artemi.
-
That's an interesting point. However the pads have only gotten bigger, and the nets smaller. This has made offense even harder, the games closer, and the skill level required higher. Kind of applicable suppose. Like I said, if we take an hour in a game I don't mind if that's the only game we play instead of 2 or 3. But we should be given respect in that game to allow it to progress at our pace.
As an observation for the streamers, when we are in drawn out long range battles, the camera was usually focused far from the battle in a general overlook of all 4 ships. I think that disengages the viewers from the battle. If you focus on each individual ship and watch our movements, you'll give the audience a view of how much action is actually going on, and the flurry of activity on each ship as we test each other. There was so much going on there that they didn't get to see, and they may be adding to the frustration. Hop from ship to ship, show them what each ship is doing.
Regardless of how you show off the match, it still took three hours or so, and directly led to the rumble not being completed as other teams just couldn't stick around any more. Yes, you're free to play how you want, but it's still what led to an overly drawn out match which no one, including the teams in it judging by lobby chat and the fact that you guys went strictly brawl in the last game, actually wanted.
Is anyone actually to blame here? Probably not, this has been an issue for as long as I can remember competitive games being shown off, but the point here is that no matter how you try to frame to match on a stream, when it stretches for the lenght of time as it did, you just can't keep it exciting the entire time.
-
Imagine, I never said it would make it more exciting. I was pointing out that a distant view of the battle missed a lot of subtlety that was going on. The viewers weren't always aware what was going on each ship. There is a lot of missed action and decision making. As competitors, when we enter a competition our first priority isn't to make a game short and exciting. It's to win, at any cost. I thought as a production for a game with sniping as feature, you might be prepared for this eventuality. If you give my team a disclaimer emphasizing that our role is to entertain first and not to compete we will know you expect something from us that we aren't willing to give next time. That way you can save yourself the suffering of our play style. As for the final match, we were willing to continue our play style. Our opponents clearly were not; being sportsmanlike, and out of respect for their recent performance, we obliged them. If you wish for us to continue participating in your production you should expect to see the same style.
-
Alrighty. First off, I believe that I've been on all sides of this coin, and I would like to put in my two cents. First as a competitor, I'd like to say that yes the sniping game is intense. The tactic stretches everyone to their limits, and it is a fun strategy when done right. As a competitor, when other teams in our bracket run the long game, and force my team to wait, it get frustrating, as all that time to warm-up my guys is wasted. They've been sitting for 3 hours waiting for our time to shine. I'm not going to go into pubs to keep my team warm on the off chance that we miss our turn in the tourney.
As a Spectator, These matches are boring. I agree that there could be some more close ups on the ships themselves, but that would not fix anything. there's only so many times you can cycle between ships before spectators will get bored again. long matches are not beneficial to keeping a viewer base for tournaments
As a co-caster... yeah, so I may have not casted a long match, but I have experienced this side of the coin. One thing that I do want to stress is that Casters are looking for numbers. They absolutely want entertaining, because that's what gets, and keeps viewers tuned in to the stream.
Tournament Organizers rely on Casters to produce their tourneys... Casters rely on players to keep the games they stream interesting so that they do not lost spectators. If spectators lose interest, then casters will not cast. No casters to cast means that TO will not create tournaments. No tournaments = no competitive play.
TL;DR all competitive teams are entertainers.
-
Now on a moderator note:
This thread is for signups for a rumble that has already happened. If desired, I can split this discussion off so that we do not break any forum rules.
Thanks,
Shink
-
That would probably be advisable if the parties involved are ok with it, that way other signups aren't pushed below it.
-
Topic split to keep things organized
-
First off: Thanks for the match, Gents! Thanks for enduring it, casters and viewers and I'd like to apologize to the teams, which evenings we've ruined.
My two cents on the match:
We've never played a full sniper loadout capeable of outsniping sniper builds. The gents have got one of the best sniper loadouts out there and know how to use it - hence I think it was a good time for us to give it a try.
Also I've recalled a comment (form brick, I think) who referred to the Gents sniper loadout as a "lost art form"(or something along the line). An opinion for which I've got rather mixed feelings. I was kind of happy to be able to illustrate what happens to matches if both teams refuse to engage. Note though that we've not intentionally streched the matches to make a point. The duration of the matches has been a result of a consequent commitment to the most efficient playstyle of the chosen builds.
On a more general note:
I personally didn't play a lot since the release of the latest patch, but from what I've seen so far brawling has been significantly nerfed by reducing the overall efficiency of mid-close range weapons and due to the range nerf of close range weapons in particular. Hence close range tactics are way less efficient - These days it's just way riskier to rush in through sniper fire relying on that quick close range kill, especially if your opponent knows how to keep their ships in shape. Overall I think the balance has been shifted in favour of all those classical long range weapons - merc, arte, hades, heavy flak and Lumber - especially with regards to the competitive scene. While some of those weapons are hard to learn, they're absolutely deadly once mastered.
The last patch tried to address complaints about carronades, which have been probably a bit too efficient on most public games but quite balanced once team play was included to matches. The reduced killing speed of classical close range hull strip+explosive combos make engineering mistakes more forgiving. However as a side effect the patch severly harmed the viability of brawl builds in games of higher caliber which isn't a good thing, imo. Frankly I liked the 1.3.2 balance way better than the current one.
Regarding the cog organization:
I'd like to see some sort of time limit for future rumble engagements, but can't provide a good idea for an implementation. Especially as I think a shift to more sniper focused builds can be expected, which will likely result in an increased average match time.
Topic split to keep things organized
Hm, I'm not sure whether that was a clever move... the entire discussion revolves around Sunday Rumble #13 after all.
-
I'm hugely in favor of some sort of time limit.
We can all agree that two sniper teams at near equal skill level take a fair bit longer to get 5 kills than two brawly teams at near-equal skill level.
Kills from a sniper build are much more precious, as one missed heavy flak could spell another 30 minutes of game time, while a missed mortar warrants another 30 seconds.
While I believe a lower point limit on sniper games would be the best option, there would need to be clear rules as to what makes a game "sniper."
Because of inevitable gray area, I think a general time limit would be best.
My limited experience planning and participating in events leaves me weary to suggest a time, but I'm sure somebody out there has one in mind.
-
Well I would like to throw my thoughts into this melting pot too. Firstly an apology; to the casters, to those spectators who left the stream because it was dull and to the other teams who could not participate because we took so long. It was not our objective to sit and play for over 3 hours without stopping. It was not our goal to break the rumble. But from my perspective the first game felt like it was done in 20 minutes, the one after 30. It was a non stop manoeuvring, tactical battle of brains as much of braun and that was exhilarating, though I can understand it might not have been first class spectating. I haven't seen the cast but I intend to, so I can look at my performance and also analyse tactics. Preparing myself for the 'best' 3 hours of my life....
The consensus as I see it thus far is that most people are in favour of time constraints for multiple reasons. The most compelling reason as I see it has been well articulated by Shinkurex. Long dull matches means no viewers, no viewers means no casters, no casters means fewer matches and the cycle continues down and down and down. But time constraints may not be the most effective way of keeping the match times down to a reasonable length because it will exclude by its very nature the builds that you are able to bring. Personally I like the sniping, we have trained our ass off to try and reach a decent level of sniping play for the competitive scene. It is something reminiscent of the old times, like Brick said and Wundsalz commented. It would be a shame to let that go. Brawling had taken a nerf but I do not think it is as extensive or as crippling as many cry about but it would be a shame to see just brawling which I think is a possibility if harsh time constraints are implemented.
But I would agree something needs to change. If matches are taking a long time lets say pushing the 45 minutes or 50 minutes mark, casters or judges should state that this match becomes the only one if those participating agree. But even this has serious disadvantages. The really great thing about competitive play is that if your first match goes badly, you often adapt, change your tactics, change the loadout. It is great to see and spectate teams coming up with innovative counters to a build. The matches often go to and fro and that is the beauty for me at least to see this happening. I worry that this will be lost and it will be a monumental shame. The way the rhinos came back in that second game with that combination to complete disable us with art / merc combo was brilliant. And for me that is what makes the game so competitive and so ingenious.
So the question is what do we as a community do to find a middle ground? I don't think there is one right answer, but there needs to be a lot of deliberation here to make sure that nobody is suffering and that sunday night's events are not repeated again too often. And lets put this into context, its not every week that something like this happens.
-
I think I'd be much more in favor of a sudden death mechanic than a straight time limit... say after 45 Min, the next point wins. It doesn't actually restrict sniping matches, but it saves spectators from watching a 1 - 1 score crawl all the way to 5 - 4.
-
I think I'd be much more in favor of a sudden death mechanic than a straight time limit... say after 45 Min, the next point wins. It doesn't actually restrict sniping matches, but it saves spectators from watching a 1 - 1 score crawl all the way to 5 - 4.
I like this. It doesn't significantly alter the game and it doesn't have as many obvious ways to be abused as a time limit.
-
I think I'd be much more in favor of a sudden death mechanic than a straight time limit... say after 45 Min, the next point wins. It doesn't actually restrict sniping matches, but it saves spectators from watching a 1 - 1 score crawl all the way to 5 - 4.
I quite like this. There's something similar that happens at the end of a fencing match (the only sport I really know anything about).
A 15 point match is divided into 3 three-minute periods. If at the end of the third period the score is tied, then a coin is flipped. That coin decides priority: 1 additional minute is given and, if no points are scored during that time, the fencer with priority wins.
So maybe something similar could work here. Something like the following:
Game Time: 45 minutes. Alert players to the remaining time at the 20 minute mark and every 5 minutes thereafter. After 45 minutes, the team that is currently ahead wins. In the case of a tie, the timer is extended by 5-10 minutes, with a team gaining priority as determined by a coin toss. If no tie-breaking kill occurs during that time, the team with priority is declared the winner.
This has the effect of making the team without priority being forced to make a play to force an engagement. It also means that teams who are behind may also force engagements to attempt to tie up and/or win the game, which adds excitement to the end-game.
Thoughts?
-
One team having "priority" seems like an incentive for them to run and hide. The only way I could see it working is if the players aren't informed who has it.
-
One team having "priority" seems like an incentive for them to run and hide. The only way I could see it working is if the players aren't informed who has it.
That's true. It's mainly there to prevent constant extension due to tied games. But yes...maybe players shouldn't know who has it. Of course, the steam viewers WOULD need to know (as it makes things interesting)...so we're have to trust the competitors to be honorable and not get information from the stream.
-
Too easy to exploit as stated. If if you guys really feel like something should be in place I think its as simple as making the game a best of 1 not 3. If the map isnt canyon ambush it wont take nearly as long either. Canyon is drawn out no matter what your style is.
-
Too easy to exploit as stated. If if you guys really feel like something should be in place I think its as simple as making the game a best of 1 not 3. If the map isnt canyon ambush it wont take nearly as long either. Canyon is drawn out no matter what your style is.
My issue with this is that...well, let's say Game 1 is a reasonable 30 minutes. But game 2 threatens to time out the client. Suddenly we're looking at 2+ hours, when game 1 had no indication this was the case.
I think the simplest solution is an X minute timer, with a coin flip deciding victory if the score is tied. Combine it with alerts of the remaining time to make sure nobody is caught off-guard.
It lacks the ability to force action towards the end of a tied game (if teams feel they're safer waiting out the clock and banking on the 50% chance to win), but at least it makes sure that a best-of-three isn't extended forever due to an overly long 2nd or 3rd game.
-
Canyon is drawn out no matter what your style is.
not true (see: ALL wolfpack matches)
with that being said what we need is a mechanic that pushes both teams from the beginning, this is why i think an overall time limit works well, but a time limit that does not feel SO short that it limits snipers in ANY way
-
The thing about time limits is that is what they are, limits, I'm in agreement that something is needed as a game ender like the previously suggested sudden death at x time, or a game starter that pushes both teams to go for victory. What ever those are is something we need to figure out.
-
The thing about time limits is that is what they are, limits, I'm in agreement that something is needed as a game ender like the previously suggested sudden death at x time, or a game starter that pushes both teams to go for victory. What ever those are is something we need to figure out.
With such extreme limits that can be exploited play would be dictated. Maybe not intentionally, be inadvertently we would be forced to change our play style and strategy to accomplish victories, or exploit leads for easy wins. If that's the case I'd rather just stick to Cogs and let you guys brawl away here.
-
My 2 shiny cents..
Whenever i hear brawling ships have a hard time agains sniperbuilds i think back to the first match against zill we had in anvalan. Watch it please. It still gives me nightmares. Lol.
I would definately not want to see a timerule but i would propose a REFEREE spectating instead who would be neutral and use some common sense to see if teams are doing something or if there is a frozen standoff. What a referee should look at would have to be beneficial for sportmanship and fairplay.
-
My 2 shiny cents..
Whenever i hear brawling ships have a hard time agains sniperbuilds i think back to the first match against zill we had in anvalan. Watch it please. It still gives me nightmares. Lol.
I would definately not want to see a timerule but i would propose a REFEREE spectating instead who would be neutral and use some common sense to see if teams are doing something or if there is a frozen standoff. What a referee should look at would have to be beneficial for sportmanship and fairplay.
i dont mind this idea, it would be like in UFC or boxing, if someone is clearly stalling the ref is able to doc points or whatever...
-
My 2 shiny cents..
Whenever i hear brawling ships have a hard time agains sniperbuilds i think back to the first match against zill we had in anvalan. Watch it please. It still gives me nightmares. Lol.
I would definately not want to see a timerule but i would propose a REFEREE spectating instead who would be neutral and use some common sense to see if teams are doing something or if there is a frozen standoff. What a referee should look at would have to be beneficial for sportmanship and fairplay.
The problem with that is if you look at our last 2 games of the 3, most of the time spent was constant action. There was a comparatively small break in the action (compared to the overall time of shooting) when the Gents were in the canyon and the Rhinos were in our spawn, that there was no action, and we were clueless where each other was at. But we were both 1 kill away from a loss, and in a sniper game that means you don't go wandering about. That was a strategic necessity. A ref in that case would have contributed very little productive anything.
-
so wait, the entire 3 hours was constant combat with the exception of one small lull?! if this is true i change my stance to "sniping is boring as shit and i just hope brawlers are always paired off vs snipers"
-
I can only speak for the galleon but i think for our junker it was the same.
We on the galleon had a hell of a intense battle. It wasnt like only staying on gun and waiting to shoot.
A real sniper battle like the one gainst the rhinos is intense. We always hided and got back in fight. Had to rebuild our guns multiple times. Decide when to buff what etc etc.
It is intense for the players.
-
Yeah but a rule would be a rule. A referee could use his judgement and try avoid problems. I seen it work in other game tourns but if it would work or help here i don't honestly know. It's a suggestion. This tourn went well even so but it's hard as viewer to know what's happening compared to gamer or active spectator.
By that i by no means mean anything against how the vidstream went but just that someone who does only spectating has maybe more freedom to inspect.
-
The Gents/SIR match took three hours. Both MNS and Thralls dropped out.
Timeout rules are in consideration.
ROFLMAO!!
Hey all you guys who were mad at BFS for taking 1:30 for a match months ago...HA HAW!! We aren't so bad after all now are we?! :P
Muhahahaa...SALT THE WOUND SALT THE WOUND!! :D :P
-
I dont say that a rule to avoid the long matches isnt necessary but to just forbid it and say it isnt hard to do for the players is just wrong.
Sth like the suggested cut from a bo3 to a bo1 if the first match goes very slow can be a way ...
-
The problem with a switch like that, is that what happens if the long match happens in the 2nd match? Switching it to Bo1 then would be unfair to all the work done in the first match to have it get thrown out like that. A switch would be good for the first match as you've said, but that's not typically where the long match happens. The long match is usually in the 2nd match, when the losing side is a bit more cautious so not to lose it all. Granted that there will always be exceptions to the rules.
-
some sort of rule needs to be put in place, some teams will love it, some wont and some might feel that it is targeted against them. But in the end it's up to Urz and his staff.
the Sunday rumble is a spectator event, meaning everything is set around recording, livestreaming, casters and the teams show up for the games they are put to play. This is something that I personally have some troubles with, but in the end I'm just glad that me and my team are able to play on a higher level than pub matches once or twice per week. However this being a spectator event also gives full control to those who are in charge, but thats not to say that urz havent listened to any complaints through the 12 prior weeks such as us EU based teams wanting the rumble to start an hour earlier etc.
I don't know what the fix for this can be, at all sides I'm looking at it just seems unfair.
In my honest opinion I think more ingame options for deathmatch such as time limit, pause when dc etc. would be able to fic problems like this we've had in all events thus far.
but In the end I agree 2 teams with long range setup should be allowed to play their game, however when it takes too long its annoying for everyone else.
-
^^ this!!
-
Basically, there's no disrespect shown for snipers or their sniping ways. The only problem people have with it is how it affects others. The Gents and Rhinos' sniping not only bored the spectators (yes, no doubt it was very intense for the people playing, but it's a shame no one else could feel the heat), but it also meant that two other teams had to drop out of the tournament. Someone mentioned it earlier, but I like the point, judging by this, people can't ignore how much of a detriment to the competitive scene these hours long sniping matches can be with the current system.
-
I would like to add in here that this isn't some sudden new issue that was only brought to light because of the Gents or Rhinos. The super long sniping matches have been around basically since competitive play has been around, there's a large amount of Cogs matches, hell, if anyone remember the 3v3 tournament that had some crazy long matches.
My point is I don't blame Rhinos or Gents in this case at all, both were playing to their strengths and admonishing them for that would just be silly.
I'd also like to clear something up that was stated earlier in the thread, at least from my personal perspective as a caster, I'll be casting games whether we have 1000 viewers or just 1. I'm pretty sure all of us casting don't really expect to be pulling in huge viewing numbers, while it'd be nice, in all likelyhood we'll always struggle to hit triple digits. So, while having entertaining matches and not drawn out two hour ones is ideal for viewer purposes, I will be casting matches whether or not they are.
-
Well im sure we asked if we should continue the sniping of screen. This way the other matches couldve continued ...
And yes the issue can come in the final then again but tbh if i bring barely enough time for a tournament that i can only play it if no long matches are happening then im doing sth wrong with my time.
-
I have no idea what you just said.
-
Your post was a bit difficult for me to understand. I've corrected best I can.
Well im I'm sure [that if] we asked if we should [could have] continue[d] the sniping of[f] screen.
Yes, a few long matches have historically been allowed to continue.
This becomes a problem when the outcome decides what future matches will happen.
However if it can be done, it generally is.
And yes the issue can come in the final then again [Of course, nothing can be done if the match is a decisive one] but tbh if i bring [have] barely enough time for a tournament that i can only play it if no long matches are happening [it is frustrating when long games happen and I miss out] then im doing sth wrong with my time.
Ah, so you noticed. Well, honestly that is a matter of personal time management. These things DO take a long time. You've got options if you are playing. Try and come up with quick win tactics. Worth a shot. If you are a spectator... well, the streams are recorded. Watch/fast-forward at your leisure! The internet is like one giant TiVo. If you want to play you've got to make time and be ready. If you want to see a sniping game that was one with experimental and possibly fool-hardy (but quick) tactics, I suggest you check out the Fjords battle between the Merry Men and TCD. Started out as a sniping match and became a brawl!
I think people have lives, but you can't ask people to change their tactics because you don't have time to sit and wait. You could ask for better scheduling, but that sort of thing tends to be the result of averages.
-
Nice how u totally missunderstand my post. Not sure if wanted or not ...
-
Alistair..... Help us understand your post. I'm not following well enough to formulate an appropriate response
-
Nice how u totally missunderstand my post. Not sure if wanted or not ...
Can you please just formulate sentences properly.
-
Well im sure we asked if we should continue the sniping of screen. This way the other matches couldve continued ...
And yes the issue can come in the final then again but tbh if i bring barely enough time for a tournament that i can only play it if no long matches are happening then im doing sth wrong with my time.
Let me know if I'm interpreting this correctly (sorry, but like some others here I'm not 100% certain I know what you meant).
Are you saying that you asked if you should play the match to it's conclusion while the stream focused on the other games? If so that partially helps solve the spectator issue (as we've got other games to watch), but wouldn't help with the tournament, as the long elapsed match time would still threaten to extend the tournament past a reasonable time window.
Also, I wouldn't say teams didn't bring enough time for the tournament: should they schedule time for 8 players to have a 9 hour window? That's not tenable: I know many of the players have wives, families, jobs, and other things on their schedule during the weekend. Getting 8 competitively skilled players to have an entire evening left completely open isn't something that I see as practical for non-professional teams with social and/or financial obligations and responsibilities.
-
He's German. Geno is Finnish. When they get passionate their english slips a bit that's all.
-
Speaking generally of all events, I think at a certain point ones has to put the matches before the stream otherwise one doesn't get to stream anything. During the Flotsam we ran into this problem once when the Gents and the Merry Men ran one of the most brutal sniping matches I have ever seen in Guns of Icarus. It was Battle on the Dunes day so this was something we were aware could easily happen. After 30 minutes we decided to switch the stream and begin the next match. We actually even got to get back to the MM/Gent game and watch their climax and finale. We were lucky things lined up to allow this.
Now I can understand times may be a bit unpredictable with the BO3 system, however I think that would be even more incentive to respect people's time more than the stream. We're all playing a video game so we have to remember that time commitments to this game will be low for most players.
-
Speaking generally of all events, I think at a certain point ones has to put the matches before the stream otherwise one doesn't get to stream anything. During the Flotsam we ran into this problem once when the Gents and the Merry Men ran one of the most brutal sniping matches I have ever seen in Guns of Icarus. It was Battle on the Dunes day so this was something we were aware could easily happen. After 30 minutes we decided to switch the stream and begin the next match. We actually even got to get back to the MM/Gent game and watch their climax and finale. We were lucky things lined up to allow this.
Now I can understand times may be a bit unpredictable with the BO3 system, however I think that would be even more incentive to respect people's time more than the stream. We're all playing a video game so we have to remember that time commitments to this game will be low for most players.
Wasn't really an option. Both matches on the other side of the bracket had finished before the 2nd match in question was halfway done. Even if the stream would've switched over to one of the other matches, the end result would've been the same, Rhinos/Gents take the same amount of time and the two teams waiting would've had to bow out.
-
Okay, but still I'm sensing your attitude here is insinuating that we as snipers should be adhering to a specific perception of how to play the game. Which in turn is insinuating you want to dictate how we play. Just because they finish their games fast and first means that we should to, or that is the correct way to compete? Sounds very discriminatory. You don't hear us saying "they should snipe and play their games longer". We are both exhibiting all the different styles of this game and it's diversity. Like I said previously, if you want to just cast brawling short games on your stream, fine, make that clear to us so we can bow out. I'm not going to impede your production, I want it to succeed. But at the same time we aren't going to compromise our style. I don't feel I should have to defend how we compete any more than any other style should have to.
-
Wasn't really an option. Both matches on the other side of the bracket had finished before the 2nd match in question was halfway done. Even if the stream would've switched over to one of the other matches, the end result would've been the same, Rhinos/Gents take the same amount of time and the two teams waiting would've had to bow out.
Oh, yall had both sides going at the same time? My misunderstanding.
-
Okay, but still I'm sensing your attitude here is insinuating that we as snipers should be adhering to a specific perception of how to play the game. Which in turn is insinuating you want to dictate how we play. Just because they finish their games fast and first means that we should to, or that is the correct way to compete? Sounds very discriminatory. You don't hear us saying "they should snipe and play their games longer". We are both exhibiting all the different styles of this game and it's diversity. Like I said previously, if you want to just cast brawling short games on your stream, fine, make that clear to us so we can bow out. I'm not going to impede your production, I want it to succeed. But at the same time we aren't going to compromise our style. I don't feel I should have to defend how we compete any more than any other style should have to.
First of all, my last comment wasn't directed at you. Secondly, in every post in this thread so far that I've made in here I've repeatedly said that I don't blame you guys for playing the way you want. My last statement we directly in response to Sammy's previous post, and has nothing to do with you.
I'm done explaining that so stop purposefully misreading for the sake of making yourself look like some sort of martyr.
Wasn't really an option. Both matches on the other side of the bracket had finished before the 2nd match in question was halfway done. Even if the stream would've switched over to one of the other matches, the end result would've been the same, Rhinos/Gents take the same amount of time and the two teams waiting would've had to bow out.
Oh, yall had both sides going at the same time? My misunderstanding.
Yeah, ever since one week we had like 7 teams sign up and we tried to cast ever match only have it run waaaay long which no one liked, we've gone to having matches run simultaneously with the 2nd set getting recorded and put onto youtube later.
-
As it was vague to me who you were referencing, I was assuming something negative was applied. It seemed like you were implying our game was responsible for multiple teams bowing out, and that was a fault we are responsible for. If that was not what you were implying than my mistake.
I want to make this perfectly clear, I'm not trying to be a martyr. I'm just really tired of the complaints, and the theory crafting of how to make our play style "viewable". This exhaustion has lead me to believe that instead of having to discuss and defend my team's style, it is better to just not compete in specific events where our style is largely viewed as a negative. Like I said, I like your production, and I want people to watch it. If they don't like watching how we play, than we won't play in the Rumble. If it isn't an issue, than we will. That's not martyrdom, that's sportsmanship, responsible accountability. I'm just not going to defend my team's style anymore, nor change our style.
-
As it was vague to me who you were referencing, I was assuming something negative was applied. It seemed like you were implying our game was responsible for multiple teams bowing out, and that was a fault we are responsible for. If that was not what you were implying than my mistake.
I literally said this https://gunsoficarus.com/community/forum/index.php/topic,2825.msg48371.html#msg48371 a page ago. Yeah, some others may have somewhat implied that it's the team's fault that everything went so long, but that's not my thought behind it.
-
Hour-long games are bad for the competitive scene, I don't think there's even an argument to be made otherwise. It puts tremendous stress on the casters as well as the players in the game, makes scheduling impractical, and stretches the patience of the viewers. While a best of three format may exacerbate this to some extent, this is not a problem unique to the Rumble and has the potential to happen in every event you will play in.
That being said, the responsibility of the teams who participate in the event is to win. It is not their responsibility to manage game length or optimize entertainment value for spectators. Those responsibilities fall onto Muse (to improve the game's balance), and myself (to organize events which properly function despite flaws in the game's balance). If a best of three set is three hours long, the event is not functioning properly and the rule-set needs to be adjusted.
It is however important to adjust the rules in a way that doesn't upset the balance of the event, in the same way it's important for the developer to maintain the balance of the mechanics themselves. Long-range conservative play should be just as viable as close-range aggressive play. The problem is not that teams are sniping. The problem is that those games are extending the length of the event too much.
The first change I'm going to make is to remove Canyon Ambush from the map pool. Canyon has historically been one of the problem maps in terms of game length, and with the recent additional cloud cover, even games between two aggressive teams can take upwards of 30 minutes as they circle around the map unable to engage. This will also remove the possibility of the "perfect storm" scenario we had last weekend of two sniping teams facing off with both Canyon and Fjords in their set.
In regards to additional rules regarding game length, it's in consideration. As I said, it is important to maintain the balance and limit the influence on teams choosing particular styles of play. Speaking on time limits, a simple "who's ahead" check bestows a large advantage to the team who wins the first engagement, and favours ships with more speed/maneuverability who would be able to evade for the rest of the game. This is one of the reasons a "fencing-style" rule granting priority wouldn't work either.
-
If I'm correct that means Dunes, Fjords, and Canyons are out of the map pool unless we've decided to leave in dunes and Fjords following the conclusion of Anvalan Conflict which ended last week, if that's not the case the only maps I believe are left are Rumble, and Duel At Dawn which severely limits the map pool for the Sunday Rumble.
-
The map pool as of now is as follows: Battle on the Dunes, Duel at Dawn, Northern Fjords, Paritan Rumble.
-
Pfft, no Canyon...glad I'm not able to make Rumbles.
There should be no way canyon matches are taking that long what with all the clouds Muse overloaded into it. Just wait for a cloud, ride it in, win. If teams can't do that, sudden death it. Should be no problem with putting in a time limit on matches.
-
Someone mentioned a map timelimit would be a good option, but also to let the match get played to end normally without restriction.
Well.. if there would be a timelimit would this mean a 3-2 or 1-0 situation would mean a win? 5 kills no longer the win?
I still think a referee that would observe time vs actions could be an alternative. Another alternative would be to have a koth tournament, which would be pretty interesting :D
Might not agree with all ideas but i do believe we have to try manage with what is decided and offered to us. Good that all sides get heard though and it isn't a recent problem, yet we are still here and have survived. I do believe we should help Urz in some way so he can get the job done in the future.
-
I dont like the idea of canyon being taken out. although it might take longer than other matches, it is also the map with the most intense situation for teams.
-
Canyons is one of my favorite maps, but this is the right decision. Hopefully it isn't permanent, and Muse realizes they went way overboard with the clouds. As Papa said, it doesn't make sniping harder, it just makes it slower.
-
NO MORE RAMP IT??!?!?!
-
The first change I'm going to make is to remove Canyon Ambush from the map pool.
I don't like this decision. In my opinion the influence of the map on the match duration is marginal - at least in comparison to other other maps like dunes or fjords.
Frankly I don't see this adjustment could possibly prevent a future encounter similar to our last match to have the same destructive effect as last sunday. Please search for a better solution!
-
Some facts and opinions regarding the sunday rumble which the design goals of a rule adjustment should revolve around:
1. The sunday rumble can be a large event. It's the only running tournament format which executed up to 7 BO3 matches on a single evening in the past.
2. the event should be executed in a time frame of 2-4h (people have got other stuff to do on weekends and EU-Players want to sleep at some point)
3. matches should be as fair as possible. The effect of rules on the match outcomes should be minimal
4. unlike other events like the cogs or the avalan conflict, I do NOT take the Rumble too seriously. I don't want to win it at all costs. As a result I'd be fine with rules affecting the matches outcome to a certain degree (which contradicts point 2) as long as they help to keep the tournament within the time limit (point 3). I think this is a very essential point - do opinions differ here? What's the opinion of other clans regarding this matter?
5. Watching the live stream should be joyful.
I'd like to highlight two posts as I think they show promising ideas how to approach the problem:
I think I'd be much more in favor of a sudden death mechanic than a straight time limit... say after 45 Min, the next point wins. It doesn't actually restrict sniping matches, but it saves spectators from watching a 1 - 1 score crawl all the way to 5 - 4.
I quite like this. There's something similar that happens at the end of a fencing match (the only sport I really know anything about).
A 15 point match is divided into 3 three-minute periods. If at the end of the third period the score is tied, then a coin is flipped. That coin decides priority: 1 additional minute is given and, if no points are scored during that time, the fencer with priority wins.
So maybe something similar could work here. Something like the following:
Game Time: 45 minutes. Alert players to the remaining time at the 20 minute mark and every 5 minutes thereafter. After 45 minutes, the team that is currently ahead wins. In the case of a tie, the timer is extended by 5-10 minutes, with a team gaining priority as determined by a coin toss. If no tie-breaking kill occurs during that time, the team with priority is declared the winner.
This has the effect of making the team without priority being forced to make a play to force an engagement. It also means that teams who are behind may also force engagements to attempt to tie up and/or win the game, which adds excitement to the end-game.
Thoughts?
Speaking generally of all events, I think at a certain point ones has to put the matches before the stream otherwise one doesn't get to stream anything. During the Flotsam we ran into this problem once when the Gents and the Merry Men ran one of the most brutal sniping matches I have ever seen in Guns of Icarus. It was Battle on the Dunes day so this was something we were aware could easily happen. After 30 minutes we decided to switch the stream and begin the next match. We actually even got to get back to the MM/Gent game and watch their climax and finale. We were lucky things lined up to allow this.
Now I can understand times may be a bit unpredictable with the BO3 system, however I think that would be even more incentive to respect people's time more than the stream. We're all playing a video game so we have to remember that time commitments to this game will be low for most players.
-
Neither of those posts you've quoted provide acceptable solutions for reasons already pointed out.
Removing Canyon Ambush is just a stop-gap until I've implemented a better fix. It is the standout for not only for being a problem sniper map, but also much longer brawling games on average. Optimally Muse would fix their maps at some point.
-
Neither of those posts you've quoted provide acceptable solutions for reasons already pointed out.
I agree, but they contain ideas which might possibly be used to form proper solutions.
-
Urz,
I have to humbly disagree with your thinking that removing Canyons is a stop-gap method. Historically, there have been long matches played on every map in your map pool with the exception of the new paritan rumble. I understand why you've done so, and I do not envy your position, but hopefully we can come up with a real solution soon, so we dont see you're map pool dwindle down to just Paritan :))
-
If I recall correctly I remember seeing a 45 minute match on Paritan, and one could easily concieve of an insanely long sniper bout where two teams are using one of the narrow alleys as their sniper lanes. Heck one of the longest matches in GOIO was on Duel at Dawn where two sniper teams took over an hour to kill each other. They're aren't really any maps that truly force combat.
-
Since the Rumble teams seem to universally want Canyon in the pool, I'll leave it in. We'll have to test some kind of game length mitigation for this weekend, though.
This is what I'm considering right now: an X minute game timer, and for the sake of demonstration let's say 30 minutes (I'll run the numbers later). If no team has at least 3 kills when the game timer expires, it's called a draw. Otherwise the game will go into "overtime". Overtime will have a Y minute timer, let's say 2 minutes, that resets every time hull armour goes down. Once the overtime timer expires, the game will be called based on the current score. If the set is tied after three games, we will play a sudden death round to the first kill.
Thoughts?
-
Imo it would be good to have a "extra time / hurry up time" after the time and before calling it a draw to get going with next kill and maybe have a normal match resolution.
Would that be 30 min per round or match?
-
Definitely worth trying out, I guess.
-
I may have an idea:
Make it a 30 min per match atleast, inform every 5 minutes how long till its over. The last kill after 30 minutes when its a draw wins. If there is no winner at 45 minutes its a draw, both teams get 1 win (out of the 2 needed for best of 3) so if 1 team has already won 1 match they will advance, or the next team that wins a match will advance. if its a draw on first round and second match is going to be a draw again after 30 minutes (or when both teams have won 1 match), then the team that makes the next kill wins.
Just an idea of how to implement a time limit and how to handle draws.
-
Since the Rumble teams seem to universally want Canyon in the pool, I'll leave it in. We'll have to test some kind of game length mitigation for this weekend, though.
This is what I'm considering right now: an X minute game timer, and for the sake of demonstration let's say 30 minutes (I'll run the numbers later). If no team has at least 3 kills when the game timer expires, it's called a draw. Otherwise the game will go into "overtime". Overtime will have a Y minute timer, let's say 2 minutes, that resets every time hull armour goes down. Once the overtime timer expires, the game will be called based on the current score. If the set is tied after three games, we will play a sudden death round to the first kill.
Thoughts?
I like the approach. The 2 min overtime seems to be a bit harsh though -it's a time frame which can easily be consumed by reapproaching the enemy after a respawn - especially if the enemy wants to the timer to win the match.
What about the following Overtime system? - If the targeted maximum match time runs up (lets say 25 min) and the game is neither a draw and at least one team has a minimum of 3 kills, the game is finished and evaluated according to the current score. Otherwise an overtime of 10 min is added to allow both teams to decide the match. If the game is still neither a draw and at least one team has a minimum of 3 kills either call the match a draw or let the dynamic time extension you've described kick in.
-
I agree we need to test this before anyone can see if its a good idea or a bad idea.
-
Since the Rumble teams seem to universally want Canyon in the pool, I'll leave it in. We'll have to test some kind of game length mitigation for this weekend, though.
This is what I'm considering right now: an X minute game timer, and for the sake of demonstration let's say 30 minutes (I'll run the numbers later). If no team has at least 3 kills when the game timer expires, it's called a draw. Otherwise the game will go into "overtime". Overtime will have a Y minute timer, let's say 2 minutes, that resets every time hull armour goes down. Once the overtime timer expires, the game will be called based on the current score. If the set is tied after three games, we will play a sudden death round to the first kill.
Thoughts?
So if im reading this right, if a game goes 2-0 in favor of red, and blue decides to run the clock to force a draw, then that's already rage worthy.
The more I think about it, the more I fear timers will just promote sniping to stay safe since they will be so worried about giving up a death, they'd rather just play the timers instead.
-
Yes, the possibility to sit out matches is an attribute of formats with time limits.
While a lot of competitive team sports work fine with preset match times, I doubt the format really fits the needs of GoI - as it's relatively easy to freeze the score by avoiding engagements.
Unfortunately I (and apparently noone else) can not think of a better practical solution to cap the match time somehow.
-
Yes, the possibility to sit out matches is an attribute of formats with time limits.
While a lot of competitive team sports work fine with preset match times, I doubt the format really fits the needs of GoI - as it's relatively easy to freeze the score by avoiding engagements.
Unfortunately I (and apparently noone else) can not think of a better practical solution to cap the match time somehow.
Agreed. I don't think any of us can think of a viable way of introducing some sort of limitation without unfairly penalizing certain play styles. We appear to have reached a catch 22 situation since the last thing any of us wants is a set of rules that makes certain teams walk away from the competition.
-
The addition of a "stalling clause" which allows the referee to give warnings for blatantly playing to the clock is an option if stalling does become an issue.
-
I do think a lot of problems may be solved by having an impartial referee