Guns Of Icarus Online

Community => Community Events => Topic started by: redria on April 02, 2014, 04:11:51 pm

Title: <Development Discussion for Official Competitive League>
Post by: redria on April 02, 2014, 04:11:51 pm
Why I'm Here

Hello everyone. I want to look specifically at a potential league I have been working on (with help from several people that have given me suggestions along the way). The end goal of this is to create a premiere level event to either be run by a third party, or to be run as the official competitive scene by Muse. This already has the attention of Muse, so I want to have the community looking at it and making sure all kinks are ironed out. The extended document is at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/110iL4Enh6PNzVYrqpClcCiLz5sSt6rKQOg5B_BmnVzQ/edit?usp=sharing (https://docs.google.com/document/d/110iL4Enh6PNzVYrqpClcCiLz5sSt6rKQOg5B_BmnVzQ/edit?usp=sharing). This rule-set sets the structure of the event along with laying out the groundwork for handling a variety of situations. If you wish to comment, feel free. You should have full permissions to comment. If you wish to work with me on editing the document, contact me and I will get you access.

League Layout

Similar to American Football, this is a competitive league with a defined season, scheduled start times, time limits, and of course playoffs.

Signups close 1 week prior to the first weekend of seasonal play. On the Wednesday prior to the first day of competition, a schedule for the season will be released. The schedule will include start times, opponents, and maps for each team. Each team will play a single best of 1 match each week. The time limit for this match will be 30 minutes. Matches will begin every 40 minutes.

Every team will play a single match every week of the regular season unless a single bye week is needed due to an odd number of teams entering. Teams will be divided into divisions such that the number of divisions is minimized, and no division is larger than 8 teams. Teams will play every other team in their division once, along with teams from other divisions if needed to fill out their schedule.

At the end of a 7 week regular season, there will be 2 rounds of playoffs over 2 weeks: the Golden Playoffs, and the Silver Playoffs. The Golden Playoffs will take place during the second week of the post-season. Teams will advance to the Golden Playoffs if they are in the top 33% of their division (rounded up). The remaining teams are advanced to the Silver Playoffs, which will take place during the first week of the post season.

Playoffs operate on similar rules to the regular season, with best of 1 matches. However, ties will not be allowed, and the time limit is soft.
The end result of the season will be a Gold Champion and a Silver Champion, along with a Golden Runner-Up.

What I Want From You

Read through the document (https://docs.google.com/document/d/110iL4Enh6PNzVYrqpClcCiLz5sSt6rKQOg5B_BmnVzQ/edit?usp=sharing) and give me feedback. I feel like I have a really strong groundwork here to build from, but I made a lot of executive calls in deciding several points.
1. If you see anything you don't like, drop a comment saying why (and maybe what you think would work better).
2. If you see something you think is really cool, leave a comment.
3. If you think of something that would be neat to add, scroll down to the additions section and leave a comment.
4. If you think something could be reworded/rearranged for more clarity, leave a comment. If you have cool name ideas, leave a comment.
5. If you have anything else that is not covered by 1-4, find somewhere and leave a comment. :D

Thank you for your time. :)
Title: Re: <Development Discussion for Official Competitive League>
Post by: Thomas on April 03, 2014, 12:29:17 am
You really put a lot of effort into this, I think it looks great. =D
Title: Re: <Development Discussion for Official Competitive League>
Post by: Tanya Phenole on April 03, 2014, 01:28:46 am
Quote
Golden Playoffs[f] - The top 33% of teams in each division, rounded up[g], is advanced to the Golden Playoffs.

I suggest to set a minimal amount of four teams in golden playoff . 4 teams are way better to rotate to make matches less predictable.
Title: Re: <Development Discussion for Official Competitive League>
Post by: redria on April 03, 2014, 06:41:45 am
Quote
Golden Playoffs[f] - The top 33% of teams in each division, rounded up[g], is advanced to the Golden Playoffs.

I suggest to set a minimal amount of four teams in golden playoff . 4 teams are way better to rotate to make matches less predictable.

Good point. Thank you. My hope would be that there are sufficient teams for that not to be a problem, but better safe than sorry. :)
-If fewer than 9 teams sign up, the top 4 teams will be advanced to the golden playoffs. If there are fewer than 4 teams remaining for the silver playoffs, the silver playoffs will not be held and the post-season will last only 1 week.
Title: Re: <Development Discussion for Official Competitive League>
Post by: Sammy B. T. on April 03, 2014, 09:13:13 am
I like this. After sky league I will be stepping down as a constant competitive captain so I would love to work on the administrative side of this.
Title: Re: <Development Discussion for Official Competitive League>
Post by: redria on April 03, 2014, 10:25:11 am
I like this. After sky league I will be stepping down as a constant competitive captain so I would love to work on the administrative side of this.
Each match will need a ref to check loadouts at match start and answer any questions anyone has about the rules. The ref will need to keep track of times with server, flex, and pause times playing an important role in handling connection issues.
I want each match to be streamed, so we will need channels to support the teams competing. I would imagine that each division would probably get a dedicated stream, so all divisions could play out simultaneously, with an offset of 10-20 minutes between streams so that viewers wouldn't watch a 5 minutes match and be left with nothing to watch for 35 minutes.
Pre-battle administration will revolve around making sure the schedule each week arranges matches to be interesting. Sort of like how the NFL flexes Sunday night football to get better games in prime time, administration might move a match to occur later in the lineup, or arrange matches so that several potential highlights don't run simultaneously. The most challenging part will be initial scheduling, and any re-writes needed if a team drops.

Whether this is run by Muse or someone else, I'm sure help will be needed. If things move forwards with Muse I will keep your name in discussion. If not then maybe I will look to you about picking this up. :)
Title: Re: <Development Discussion for Official Competitive League>
Post by: FluffyHetsche on April 03, 2014, 02:41:03 pm
I don't know if this was covered and I'm just stupid, but what happens if a team that doesn't have any back-ups (only 8 players in the team overall) and one of their players disconnects during a game and can't reconnect? Would the team automatically lose or would they be able to carry on with an AI? (worst case scenario; I don't think anybody would want to do that)

Same problem would occur if let's say the Steam servers are down, but the team does have substitutes. Players already in the game aren't affected by that, but nobody can connect to the game as long as Steam is not online.

I'm pretty impressed with this! A tournament like this can't have enough rules and guidelines and you put a lot of thought and work into this. ♥
Title: Re: <Development Discussion for Official Competitive League>
Post by: Alistair MacBain on April 03, 2014, 03:01:08 pm
Great work on this Redria.
Such a tournament could turn into the main event of guns.
Something i was looking for since the last season of cogs finished.

If you need any help ill happily do what i can.
Title: Re: <Development Discussion for Official Competitive League>
Post by: redria on April 03, 2014, 03:18:55 pm
I don't know if this was covered and I'm just stupid, but what happens if a team that doesn't have any back-ups (only 8 players in the team overall) and one of their players disconnects during a game and can't reconnect? Would the team automatically lose or would they be able to carry on with an AI? (worst case scenario; I don't think anybody would want to do that)

Same problem would occur if let's say the Steam servers are down, but the team does have substitutes. Players already in the game aren't affected by that, but nobody can connect to the game as long as Steam is not online.

I'm pretty impressed with this! A tournament like this can't have enough rules and guidelines and you put a lot of thought and work into this. ♥

Ooohhh Steam servers. I hadn't thought of that...

Regarding a player disconnecting and not being able to reconnect - Each team gets 4 minutes of pause time that allows them time to reconnect players/get substitutes. Once their 4 minutes are up, the match timer would start back up and the battle would continue with or without a full team. I want to find a good balance between flexibility and rules that don't depend on gut feelings and sportsmanship. My current rule says nobody can join outside of pause time, so if the pause timer ran out, then a team would be stuck one person short. This encourages teams to have at least 1 or 2 backups ready to go. This should really be the case anyway, since real life problems due come up and nobody can guarantee attendance every week. This may be a ruling that should change to allow players to join with pre-determined loadouts.
Say if there are any open slots before a match starts, the captain may announce a specific loadout to both the referee and the opposing team. Mid-match a player could join late if they bring that loadout. If a player disconnects then a player can join at any time as long as they have the same loadout.
If a team only has 8 players, it is a risk they run. Unfortunately there is no real way to protect them from individual drops.

Regarding steam going down... My language would be too colorful for this forum.
I would probably count this towards server time. Right now I have 5 minutes allocated towards server issues where 3+ people disconnecting or slow-mo will give the game an official pause. There is a set of rules about what happens when server time runs out. If steam goes down, it is no longer a team/individual player issue, but a League issue, and something that a team should not be punished for. So the ref should be making calls based on the availability of steam as to whether down time is allocated from a team's pause time or from the server time of a game.

If that makes sense to anyone but me, then huzzah!

The biggest problem I foresee with all of the rules regarding connection problems is the timing. If the problem happens outside of a fight, all is well and good to pause. Mid-engagement, can you really pause? How does that get handled? If anyone has a suggestion on that, please let me know. It seems like such a gut call and I don't know how to translate it into straightforward rules.

===============================

TL;DR:
Teams get 4 minutes of emergency pause time for player drops. Players can replace AI outside of this if they bring a pre-determined loadout.
Steam problems are called by the attending referee and count towards a 5 minute pool of server time.
I don't know how to handle pauses mid-engagement. Ideas? Help?

Great work on this Redria.
Such a tournament could turn into the main event of guns.
Something i was looking for since the last season of cogs finished.

If you need any help ill happily do what i can.
Thanks. Help me riddle out a non-judgement-call rule on when to enact pauses. :P

Sorry to make such a long post, but my best idea right now is that pauses can only begin when there are no spots down. However, that puts the responsibility on the weakened team to break contact, and opens the door to sportsmanship having an impact on gameplay which I want to avoid. Opponent trying to run away because they lost their captain? Chase hard and get the kill before they shake your spot!
Alternatively, pauses only start when there are no spots, but kills don't count if a disconnect happens more than 5 seconds before the kill occurs. Ofc DM doesn't support this, but the kill limit could be lowered accordingly, basically awarding a free kill to the enemy team.
Title: Re: <Development Discussion for Official Competitive League>
Post by: Alistair MacBain on April 03, 2014, 03:41:46 pm
Ah damn my memory ...
One thing i wanted to bring up. Keep in mind that sometimes some players get delayed connects at matchstart.
So you either have to pause till everyone is fully loaded in which would make it hard to control if noone really starts an action (preloading, movement (due to wind) etc) or just dont hard force those rules at matchstart.


Yeah mid engage DCs are hard to call.
You either have to make those calls by a referee and then count them towards the team with the dc or just state that there are no midengage pauses.
Second solution gives a disadvantage to the team with the dc. First rule is hard to enforce and can give a team that just got ambushed an advantage.
I would go with the second one cause you could easily abuse the other rule by dcing on purpose.
There is just no good solution. Even an ingame pause feature can give the team that got ambushed an advantage by letting them calm down and analyzing the situation.


But one thing i would think of ...
Especially for such a big tournament. Give the teams a break for one week or so.
Best way would be to split the games of each divison on different weekends. Maybe 2 divisions (based on division number) per week/weekend. That way everyone gets a pause and doesnt have to show up every week cause those weekly events where you always have to show up can make it really hard for teams/clans and even more for the smaller ones to be able to compete on a regular basis.

And one thing i would think of aswell ...
While its great to have people tied to a team and not have cross team substitutes every week or even more extreme every game it makes it really hard to find substitutes.
Maybe allow a listed substitute pool for every team where they can get a sub for one game. Limit that pool to a certain number (10-12 players or sth like that). Allow only one or two subs per team/boat. And dont allow them to sub for multiple teams on one week/weekend and then everyone has a chance even with a small ammount of players to play on a quite regular basis.
Title: Re: <Development Discussion for Official Competitive League>
Post by: redria on April 03, 2014, 04:09:58 pm
Ah damn my memory ...
One thing i wanted to bring up. Keep in mind that sometimes some players get delayed connects at matchstart.
So you either have to pause till everyone is fully loaded in which would make it hard to control if noone really starts an action (preloading, movement (due to wind) etc) or just dont hard force those rules at matchstart.
Good point, but as far as I know the slow connects usually don't come up outside of CP maps where moving first gives you an advantage. My tendency would be to make the ruling that when the ref connects they announce "go" and start the timer. The "go" gives teams an indication of the match timer and no advantage should be had by that period of connection. If it became clear that someone wasn't connecting at all pause time could be enabled.

Quote
Yeah mid engage DCs are hard to call.
You either have to make those calls by a referee and then count them towards the team with the dc or just state that there are no midengage pauses.
Second solution gives a disadvantage to the team with the dc. First rule is hard to enforce and can give a team that just got ambushed an advantage.
I would go with the second one cause you could easily abuse the other rule by dcing on purpose.
There is just no good solution. Even an ingame pause feature can give the team that got ambushed an advantage by letting them calm down and analyzing the situation.
I think you mixed up first and second solution? Pauses only start when there are no spots down being the more viable solution, pushing the DC team to either carry on anyway, or to organize a retreat. This could be abused somewhat by the non-DC team, but seems like a more consistent rule with less actively intentional abuse potential.

Quote
But one thing i would think of ...
Especially for such a big tournament. Give the teams a break for one week or so.
Best way would be to split the games of each divison on different weekends. Maybe 2 divisions (based on division number) per week/weekend. That way everyone gets a pause and doesnt have to show up every week cause those weekly events where you always have to show up can make it really hard for teams/clans and even more for the smaller ones to be able to compete on a regular basis.
Hmm.. Move to an 8 week regular season, with a 3 week post-season? Everyone is guaranteed one bye week during the middle 4 weeks (weeks 3-6) of regular season play. The first week of the post-season is a bye week as well, with no matches taking place.
This takes the full season to 11 weeks, meaning we could probably safely run only 3 seasons in a year. 4 seasons would leave us with only ~3 weeks downtime between seasons probably not enough. 3 seasons gives us about 6 weeks downtime between seasons, which leaves open opportunities for other events. 2 seasons per year gives the most flexibility to other events, and would probably work well with this.
I want to minimize the length of the season so teams aren't committing too far into the future, and I want the regular season to have enough matches to be meaningful. This might be a good blend.

Quote
And one thing i would think of aswell ...
While its great to have people tied to a team and not have cross team substitutes every week or even more extreme every game it makes it really hard to find substitutes.
Maybe allow a listed substitute pool for every team where they can get a sub for one game. Limit that pool to a certain number (10-12 players or sth like that). Allow only one or two subs per team/boat. And dont allow them to sub for multiple teams on one week/weekend and then everyone has a chance even with a small ammount of players to play on a quite regular basis.
This seems similar to my 12 members to a team + 4 soft members. The 4 soft members constitute the backups.
Are you suggesting each team can create a pool of substitutes from which to draw, or that a grand pool of substitutes is created for all teams from which any team may request support?


Something interesting to see how these rules would play out small scale would be to get 6-8 teams to run a single weekend of matches (fun matches) on stream following every rule. This wouldn't catch everything we may have missed, but it might give a good indication of how it would be to play and watch under these rules. 6 teams would finish play in <=2 hours.
Title: Re: <Development Discussion for Official Competitive League>
Post by: Alistair MacBain on April 03, 2014, 04:21:50 pm
Nope sadly those slow connects arent unique for CP.
I know one player in the gents that had those slow connects in alot of our matches.

The first and second were more targeted at my two examples ;).
And personally i just dont like tieing it onto spotting. Thats a game mechanic thats sometimes sacrificed for faster fire. And due to the strange behaviour of clouds which can lead to the inability to spot this can be kinda unfair. I understand what you intended to do with it. I just think spotting isnt consistent enough to base it upon this.

True it is hard to plan that far into future when you prolong it to much.
Both ways have their pros and cons.

Your softcap for members is kinda similiar but forces it totally onto players and makes it quite hard for newer teams to find a sub really fast.
It doesnt need to replace your soft membercap but imo this substitute pool would make it much easier for teams to find a sub. It also reduces the commitment for the players.
Title: Re: <Development Discussion for Official Competitive League>
Post by: redria on April 03, 2014, 04:35:39 pm
Nope sadly those slow connects arent unique for CP.
I know one player in the gents that had those slow connects in alot of our matches.
I more mean it doesn't matter much outside of CP. I know it happens, but I don't know of it negatively affecting anyone. I'm not sure that there is anything to do about it except say that the timer starts when the ref says go and you can move/do things as soon as your character will move in-game. This should not impact the outcome of matches.

Quote
And personally i just dont like tieing it onto spotting. Thats a game mechanic thats sometimes sacrificed for faster fire. And due to the strange behaviour of clouds which can lead to the inability to spot this can be kinda unfair. I understand what you intended to do with it. I just think spotting isnt consistent enough to base it upon this.
This is fair. I will have to think more on this. It isn't a pretty thing. Has a disconnect happened mid-engage in any events previously? Do you just play until an engagement ends?
I suggested tying it to spotting as an indicator of an engagement. That way you don't have a ref trying to judgement call whether an engagement is active or not. There must be a better solution.
Title: Re: <Development Discussion for Official Competitive League>
Post by: Alistair MacBain on April 03, 2014, 04:49:47 pm
A slow connect can affect a game. Sometimes but not always.
Most obvious is a slow connect from a pilot.
Let me give you an example ... and yes it was a gents game cause i was in it so i remember those games the best :P.
Map: Northern Fjords
teams: mandarin, gents
teams spawned ( gents on bridge side), mandarin rushed towards the mountain on the side of the gents right at the start of the game
A slow connect in such a situation can cause alot. A pilot not moving instantly does the most. But even a crewmember can do a serious harm on such a situation. A slower shot or a bot taking over a manticore, shooting a volley and then starting a reload can also decide an engagement.
Yes those are special situations but they happen.
I kinda like the idea in theory to let the match start by refcall after teams called a full connect. It has its own problems but with the current spawn system there shouldnt be a serious influence on the outcome of the match. At least i cant think of any atm.


Yeah active engagement is hard to call.
Clear things first ...
A destroyed armor is obviously a open engagement. A dead balloon would be the same if you ask me.
A close position of minimum 2 emenies (dunno how to state close) would mean be active aswell if you ask me.
Its really hard to judge such a thing.

And yes those DCs happened. They happened alot. Some teams stated prior to the matchstart that they wont pause. Some teams paused after they were asked. But due to bots taking over its quite hard to judge those things.
Title: Re: <Development Discussion for Official Competitive League>
Post by: Captain Smollett on April 03, 2014, 09:47:26 pm
Just a few thoughts:

I think giving every team a by week would help ease battle fatigue as well.

Also I am a strong advocate for more lenient substitution rules. I don't think I ever made it through a cogs season with as few as 4 substitutes.
Title: Re: <Development Discussion for Official Competitive League>
Post by: redria on April 04, 2014, 08:35:40 am
@ Alistair... A lot to think over there. I'll see what ideas I can come up with.

Just a few thoughts:

I think giving every team a by week would help ease battle fatigue as well.

Also I am a strong advocate for more lenient substitution rules. I don't think I ever made it through a cogs season with as few as 4 substitutes.
I think the bye week is probably a good call. At worst it doesn't even really hurt anything. I think I'll write it into the rules.

The substitution rules are probably always going to be a point of contention. Current thoughts:
1. Current system where you have 8 substitutes available.
2. Allow players to substitute freely, but not on different teams in 1 week. -> Teams can only substitute a maximum of 3 players each week
3. Lock players to a team they substitute for, but allow that pool to be as large as needed (or at least much larger than 8)

1 has the feel of classic sports, but may not work in a casual gaming environment.
2 requires you to maintain a core group, so that you never have your entire team change over the course of a week. Probably the best option, but needs some consideration on how the core group of players is pooled/treated. Possibly a 12 person team allowed, with anyone outside of that free to sub on a week-by-week basis (with no more than 3 subs each week).
3 handicaps players and small teams. Probably not a good choice.
Title: Re: <Development Discussion for Official Competitive League>
Post by: Velvet on April 04, 2014, 03:43:59 pm
I don't really see the need for this to be called an "Official Competitive League". I think eventually we will have multiple stable, large events and I don't see that there's any reason for any of them to claim or imply precedence over one another. If Muse intend to run the league that would be different, but if that's the case I personally would prefer that they designed that themselves and with the intention of maximally utilising their ability to integrate competitive features in game.

Otherwise I could totally get behind another event, good luck!
Title: Re: <Development Discussion for Official Competitive League>
Post by: redria on April 04, 2014, 03:58:57 pm
I don't really see the need for this to be called an "Official Competitive League". I think eventually we will have multiple stable, large events and I don't see that there's any reason for any of them to claim or imply precedence over one another. If Muse intend to run the league that would be different, but if that's the case I personally would prefer that they designed that themselves and with the intention of maximally utilising their ability to integrate competitive features in game.

Fair enough. If Muse does pursue this, then I'm sure they will tweak it to match what they want and what they can support. But they know that their official competitive scene has not been as well received as it could have been. The best designed league won't work if nobody signs up, so something community driven is more likely to get support from said community.

Regarding calling it the official league, I guess my intent was to make something to replace Cogs. I sort of missed Cogs, but as I understand it was basically the competitive event. There were other events, but this was the one everyone took dead serious. The community isn't really big enough to support multiple league type events. I sort of think that there should be a premiere league (this), a premiere tournament (sky league), and possibly a premiere roleplay event (aerodrome and what follows). Anything occurring between these would sort of be the community breather between the serious events.
The name is certainly up for review, but we just aren't big enough to support too much. Make sense?

Otherwise I could totally get behind another event, good luck!
Sneaked in an edit. :P
Thanks!
Title: Re: <Development Discussion for Official Competitive League>
Post by: Velvet on April 04, 2014, 04:08:01 pm
I understand that the Sky League was supposed to be the premier Cogs-replacement event. I was quite surprised by the tournament structure, but before the lack of casters necessitated the switch from double to single elimination it had a structure that would have created a bit of a Cogs-like longrunning campaign.

Talking of which, what are you plans with regards to casting? That seems to be the main bottleneck in organisation of a lot of events.

and yeah, sneaky edits. It's a habit. ^^
Title: Re: <Development Discussion for Official Competitive League>
Post by: redria on April 04, 2014, 04:19:30 pm
I understand that the Sky League was supposed to be the premier Cogs-replacement event. I was quite surprised by the tournament structure, but before the lack of casters necessitated the switch from double to single elimination it had a structure that would have created a bit of a Cogs-like longrunning campaign.

Talking of which, what are you plans with regards to casting? That seems to be the main bottleneck in organisation of a lot of events.

and yeah, sneaky edits. It's a habit. ^^
Ehhhhhhh in my opinion even on double elimination it is still just a tournament. Which is when I first wrote up the first draft of rules for this. I don't like the idea that the premiere event allows teams to be eliminated so quickly. It is excellent to have a serious tournament like Sky League, don't get me wrong. But I don't think it replaces Cogs.

Casting I probably want to have a stream running for each division. Divisions would have a maximum of 4 games each week, which times out to under 3 hours per division total. Since this is the planning/development phase, I have not spoken with any casters and have not worked on organizing that side of things. I don't want to run this simply because I want to compete. I am making this as much for me as for the community.
Once rules are ironed out, I presume Muse or the 3rd party would work to collect enough casters to support the event. Although anyone with a stream and casting experience could chime in at any point here and I will make a list...  8)
Title: Re: <Development Discussion for Official Competitive League>
Post by: Imagine on April 04, 2014, 04:57:04 pm
Once rules are ironed out, I presume Muse or the 3rd party would work to collect enough casters to support the event. Although anyone with a stream and casting experience could chime in at any point here and I will make a list...  8)
I wouldn't count on Muse folks stepping in too much. They've got a lot on their plates, and while I'm sure Keyvias is totally willing to help out with some stuff, I highly doubt they have the time or energy to focus on developing a league/caster scene.

As for a list of possible casters/streamers for such a thing... I'm sure you know the rather short list of those who can do it with an acceptable quality.
Title: Re: <Development Discussion for Official Competitive League>
Post by: Wundsalz on April 04, 2014, 07:29:15 pm
@ Alistair... A lot to think over there. I'll see what ideas I can come up with.

Just a few thoughts:

I think giving every team a by week would help ease battle fatigue as well.

Also I am a strong advocate for more lenient substitution rules. I don't think I ever made it through a cogs season with as few as 4 substitutes.
The substitution rules are probably always going to be a point of contention. Current thoughts:
1. Current system where you have 8 substitutes available.
2. Allow players to substitute freely, but not on different teams in 1 week. -> Teams can only substitute a maximum of 3 players each week
3. Lock players to a team they substitute for, but allow that pool to be as large as needed (or at least much larger than 8)
2. looks reasonable. In general I prefer less substitution rules over too many - I can't recall an incident where a lax subsitution rule has been used in an abusive manner. I prefer heavily substituted teams with switching faces over now shows.

Regarding casting: In my opinion there is too much focus on casting in most events/leagues that are organized here. I would not mind if some - or even all - matches don't get streamed. Don't get me wrong, I really enjoy watching the streams myself, and do appreciate the effort and dedication of people like Brick, who spent weekend after weekend commentating our matches. However I do believe the casting process shouldn't inhibit the event execution too much. Personally I prefer parallel and blind matches over event time-frames that exceed two hours.
Title: Re: <Development Discussion for Official Competitive League>
Post by: Velvet on April 04, 2014, 07:54:59 pm
I'll second that it's not worth killing an event over casting... but equally, I would really like there to be casting of most events. Rewatching streams is one of my favourite parts of participating in an event and watching stream is also nice and can only serve to popularise the competitive scene. Recently I've seen viewer counts creeping up on some streamed events and met some players in game who actually watch the streams despite not being competitive/clan affiliated. I feel streamed events are a very important part of the growth and development of the competitive scene so I think events should be cast wherever and as much as possible.

I'm also unaware of any past issues with substitutions and don't really understand why organisers have been leaning towards stringent sub rules. Ultimately it wouldn't even be that detrimental to an event if players were allowed to switch teams midway or sub for multiple teams, as long as there wasn't a state of major exploitation - which we have never experienced before or have reason to expect. I can see why I shouldn't be able to borrow players from a sister team but having to have our sub pools separate and planned out well in advance would make it unnecessarily more difficult to deal with crew emergencies.
If there has to be (I don't think there really does) an absolute restriction on cross-team subbing, I'd prefer to see it done in the same way as the Sky League; subs are locked in after they play for a team instead of having to be arranged well in advance.
Title: Re: <Development Discussion for Official Competitive League>
Post by: Thomas on April 04, 2014, 08:13:14 pm
Casting shouldn't be too hard. I'm sure a lot of volunteers would show up if you just ask (and usually if you don't ask as well).

The only issue I could foresee is the casters already being busy with actually competing. I'd be happy to help out (I can stream just fine, but I need to work on my casting personality a bit more).

With the best of one matches and the time limit, matches should actually fly by pretty fast. If you have 20 active teams (I think the Sky League had about that many show up), that's 10 matches a week. Fourty minutes between matches and you have almost 7 hours of game time. Could easily split that between two (or even three) casters.

If you want to get fancy (ie: professional looking), you can set up a couple twitch accounts, give the casters the graphics they need; and then have them stream to those channels. You really really have to trust them for that though. But it's easier than having the channels switch all the time; and makes it easier to pass the baton to the next caster if they need to tag out for their own match. Although if you can get some consistent people each week, that'd probably be best.


---

On an unrelated note, what about teams that want to join the League late? Can they do so, with something like a penalty of counting all the matches they missed as losses? New teams pop up from time to time, and it'd be nice for them if they could get straight into the action if they so choose. One of the features I like about our current system is the ability for teams to hop in any time and participate.
Title: Re: <Development Discussion for Official Competitive League>
Post by: Imagine on April 04, 2014, 08:25:11 pm
Casting shouldn't be too hard. I'm sure a lot of volunteers would show up if you just ask (and usually if you don't ask as well).
If calls for Sky League casters/streamers/refs is of any indication, no, no they don't.
Title: Re: <Development Discussion for Official Competitive League>
Post by: Sammy B. T. on April 04, 2014, 08:49:08 pm
With the matches of the day not effecting each other you only need two stream teams to get things done pretty quickly.
Title: Re: <Development Discussion for Official Competitive League>
Post by: Thomas on April 04, 2014, 08:59:13 pm
I know there's a good number of CA's that volunteer for casting a lot.

Even with the almost last-minute call for casters and other factors, there was still a good number of people willing and able to cast.
Title: Re: <Development Discussion for Official Competitive League>
Post by: redria on April 05, 2014, 12:30:10 pm
Yay discussion! Wall of text incoming (this is why I switched to the numbered rules format. I am far too wordy)

Substitutions
1. The concept of substitutions in e-sports probably originates with the idea of substitutions in IRL sports. However, unlike like IRL sports where you need subs because people have physical limitations and get injured etc, e-sports is mental, hardware, and attendance driven. You need subs in case there is an emergency, someone has hardware/connection problems, or you just have someone disappear.
In IRL sports, each team having a limited pool of substitutes makes fatigue an actual game strategy. You can design plays around wearing down the other team specifically so you can make a late-game play to win.
In e-sports, each team having a limited pool of substitutes makes being prepared important.
And it sucks.
However.

2. Without substitution rules, and given that there will (surely) be prizes for winners, players would want to enter in as many teams as possible to try to maximize their chances of being on a winning team. Who needs to rely on double elimination when you have multiple teams?
Now I know this is not something that has been seen. But without a framework to prevent it, and if the game/event were to see a sudden growth in popularity, then it would probably become a problem.

3. Muse classically awards prizes to 12 members of the winning team. That means the 13th player gets screwed over. If you have a solid 8 main core, and have regular random substitutes, how are you going to determine who gets those 4 extra prizes? I know this is something clans usually handle on their own with no problem, but again if this grows without the proper supporting framework then it could become a problem.

4. I am structuring the rules and the change log in such a way that additions are pretty easy to make. If we move forward without too much of a framework we can always petition to add it later on if it becomes a problem.

Probably the best balance for the time being would be that each team must have 8-12 core players listed, and all other players could act as substitutes for any team. Teams must bring at least 4 core players to each match. A team must have at least one of their pilots be a core player. For non-core players, there is no limit on how many teams they can sub for (even in the same week) during the regular season. A non-core player, if they are to substitute as a pilot for any team, may not act as a substitute for any other team that week. During the post-season, a player is locked to whatever team they substitute for for the duration of the post-season (cannot sub for multiple teams within the same playoff, or between playoffs).
^This would allow flexibility, prevent too much abuse in switching out pilots, and lock up the playoffs. Admittedly the playoffs are the most taxing part of the league, but they determine the outcome, so I feel higher restrictions are natural.

Casting
I want each game to be recorded/streamed. That's it. Would it be nice if the game was cast? Sure. But recording is the first step.
The structure is designed around the idea that each team knows exactly when they start. Every week this should be a 40 minute event for each team. The only people who would have it longer would be casters, recorders, and refs. This puts more pressure on those individuals to be orderly, but I don't think it is too much.
I like the concept of each division having its own stream. If we were to have 20 teams, there would be 3 divisions: 7, 7, and 6. We would need 3 streams. 2 streams would run 3 games total (2 hours), while the third stream would run 4 games (2 hours, 40 minutes). This would include the high probability of extended breaks midway through the streams where the casters could put on music and do something else for a bit. Because if a match finishes early, the next one still won't start until its scheduled time.

The central pivots of the structure design are that teams aren't dedicating hours upon hours to each day, not knowing how much they will actually be playing, each team plays every week, and the games are streamed in such a way that teams are easy to follow week to week for outside viewers, creating the possibility of an actual outside fan-base.
Tournaments are fun, but if I only care about one team, they suck to watch because I don't know when I need to start watching and whether I will get to watch more than 1 game.

That being said, and depending on who hosts, I sort of like the idea of several streams linked with graphics where casters can hop on and cast a game or 2, then get back to their team. If we don't have enough dedicated casters to handle every stream, then the dedicated casters we do have could be moved from stream to stream to follow the highlight games, while the fill-in casters would join where available and cast the other games. I really don't know how difficult some of this would be, and if anyone would like to jump in and slap me for being an idiot, feel free to do so, but this seems pretty interesting.

Late joins
Thomas, I can't quite tell if your comment was serious or is just dripping in sarcasm. ;)
Either way, my answer would be that team cannot join mid-season. With the goal of heavy structure here, losing a team is hard enough. Adding a team would possibly necessitate the addition of a new division, new stream, more casters, completely new schedule, etc.

HOWEVER

I am considering a rule that could possibly allow it.
Let the sign-ups remain open past the deadline. Any team can still sign up after the deadline, but will not be included in the initial schedule. If any other team were to drop out/be ejected, then in order of sign-up, teams would be approached between Sunday and Wednesday to replace the dropped team. The late joining team adopt the dropping team's record with half of the dropping team's wins (rounded up) converted to losses. Alternatively, the dropping team's record would disappear and the joining team would just be given losses for each of those games.
This would help prevent having to restructure the league for someone dropping and it would give an opportunity (though not a guaranteed one) to late joiners.
A team being given losses would require me to reword/alter rule 3.7.2. <- more of just a note to myself in case I forget.
Title: Re: <Development Discussion for Official Competitive League>
Post by: Thomas on April 05, 2014, 12:58:32 pm
Well I was just basing it upon Muse's current competitive scene, which allows for teams to join in or drop out whenever they see fit. I really like this concept, as it allows for a newly formed clan/team to get straight into the action instead of needing to wait however many months for the next season to start. With the League play, it also lets them gain some experience in the competitive scene in guaranteed matches without them being kicked out almost immediately as would happen with a tournament.

My suggestion would be to allow new teams to join, but taking at least a week before putting them into the rotation (ie: If they sign up on Tuesday, you don't stick them into the rotation until the following  weekend (not the upcoming one)) . They can only join during the Regular Season, and all the matches they would have missed count as losses. This lets them compete, and even join in the Post-Season. They cannot mid-join during the post season, but assuming this is a continual thing, it won't be that long of a wait until the start of the next season. There could also be a provision to lock them out of the Golden Playoffs if they would have qualified, since they signed up late (although I don't really see a need for it).
Title: Re: <Development Discussion for Official Competitive League>
Post by: redria on April 05, 2014, 02:03:13 pm
Well I was just basing it upon Muse's current competitive scene, which allows for teams to join in or drop out whenever they see fit. I really like this concept, as it allows for a newly formed clan/team to get straight into the action instead of needing to wait however many months for the next season to start. With the League play, it also lets them gain some experience in the competitive scene in guaranteed matches without them being kicked out almost immediately as would happen with a tournament.

My suggestion would be to allow new teams to join, but taking at least a week before putting them into the rotation (ie: If they sign up on Tuesday, you don't stick them into the rotation until the following  weekend (not the upcoming one)) . They can only join during the Regular Season, and all the matches they would have missed count as losses. This lets them compete, and even join in the Post-Season. They cannot mid-join during the post season, but assuming this is a continual thing, it won't be that long of a wait until the start of the next season. There could also be a provision to lock them out of the Golden Playoffs if they would have qualified, since they signed up late (although I don't really see a need for it).
Perhaps we could allow late joins until all divisions were maxed out?
I don't want to have to break off and create new divisions. Part of advancing teams to the golden playoffs out of the division rankings is so that the best of each division advance. If the teams haven't been playing each other within the division, this sort of gets nullified, and you might as well not have divisions at all. Which is of course an option, but I like the concept of divisions. :P
Additionally, there is the problem of odd/even numbers of teams. If we have an odd number of teams, at least one team has to get a bye week each week. I want each team to play the same number of games, so that has to be balanced. If we add one team, we have changed from an odd to an even schedule (or vice versa). This complicates a whole lot of everything.

So a possible rule-set could be that teams may sign up throughout the regular season. If a team drops they can, in order of signup, replace the dropped teams the same week. This replacement rule would remain in constant effect. If there were 2 teams signed up and ready, then after a 1 week wait, both teams would be entered in, to maintain the balance. Double teams would only be added until adding more would necessitate the creation of a new division, at which point teams may only be added through drop replacements.

That said, dang, drops are going to mess with the even/odd thing. Most unfortunate. I'll run some numbers at some point and see if I can figure out a solution (which might allow teams to join alone).
Title: Re: <Development Discussion for Official Competitive League>
Post by: Thomas on April 05, 2014, 02:33:39 pm
Ah, I suppose I've been skimming over the division part, which brings up some questions.

I see that they're randomly generated, but what's considered 'reasonably balanced'?

It reminds me of the Sky League Groups, which were randomly put together. Should each division be made of teams around the same ranking? (ie: great teams all in one division, good teams in another, new teams in a third, etc) Or should the very experienced teams be spread around evenly?

Title: Re: <Development Discussion for Official Competitive League>
Post by: redria on April 07, 2014, 03:54:24 am
Ah, I suppose I've been skimming over the division part, which brings up some questions.

I see that they're randomly generated, but what's considered 'reasonably balanced'?

It reminds me of the Sky League Groups, which were randomly put together. Should each division be made of teams around the same ranking? (ie: great teams all in one division, good teams in another, new teams in a third, etc) Or should the very experienced teams be spread around evenly?
This was something I wanted to look at but wasn't totally comfortable with. I suppose what I want is for like, 3-5 random generations, with the host looking at them and making a judgement call on what looks the most balanced. By no means should a host move teams around to satisfy their own whims, but it makes it generally better if the divisions are balanced.

By balanced I mean that each division would have about an equal distribution of good and new teams. Basically trying to avoid a situation where a mediocre team gets the glory of reaching the golden playoffs because their division was just that bad, only to be crushed out.
More importantly, it helps keep the really good teams out of the silver playoffs. The point of the silver playoffs is to give a goal to the teams who aren't quite matching up to the top teams. If all the top teams are in one division, then some will get sent to the silver playoffs, and all the good-but-not-great teams that expect to do well in the silver playoffs would get beaten down anyways.

I'm happy to take the balance point out if people are uncomfortable with it. Just spitballing here. ^.^
Title: Re: <Development Discussion for Official Competitive League>
Post by: Skrimskraw on April 07, 2014, 06:03:53 am
hey redria, I was told to go through your idea.
So i opened up the document and made some comments under the user René B.
I couldnt be bothered to go through the 3 walls of text in this thread to see if some of my points have been answered already and what not. I might also have missed some points here and there.

next thing I would like to see is the updated document with changes that you have made, and I will read it again.
Title: Re: <Development Discussion for Official Competitive League>
Post by: redria on April 07, 2014, 11:12:29 am
hey redria, I was told to go through your idea.
So i opened up the document and made some comments under the user René B.
I couldnt be bothered to go through the 3 walls of text in this thread to see if some of my points have been answered already and what not. I might also have missed some points here and there.

next thing I would like to see is the updated document with changes that you have made, and I will read it again.
Thanks Skrim. I replied to each of your notes, and I will be going through and making adjustments today. If you want to look at my replies we can continue talking, or if you just want to wait and read through my change log and see what you think we can do that.
Title: Re: <Development Discussion for Official Competitive League>
Post by: Skrimskraw on April 07, 2014, 11:39:30 am
hey redria, I was told to go through your idea.
So i opened up the document and made some comments under the user René B.
I couldnt be bothered to go through the 3 walls of text in this thread to see if some of my points have been answered already and what not. I might also have missed some points here and there.

next thing I would like to see is the updated document with changes that you have made, and I will read it again.
Thanks Skrim. I replied to each of your notes, and I will be going through and making adjustments today. If you want to look at my replies we can continue talking, or if you just want to wait and read through my change log and see what you think we can do that.

you dont need to reply or defend your system. Im just giving you my feedback, if im the only one who is saying this as opposed to others saying im wrong, then maybe im wrong :p
Title: Re: <Development Discussion for Official Competitive League>
Post by: redria on April 07, 2014, 12:01:25 pm
you dont need to reply or defend your system. Im just giving you my feedback, if im the only one who is saying this as opposed to others saying im wrong, then maybe im wrong :p
Ah, but I do need to reply. :)
The point of this is to be discussion. We have several weeks here where even if a plan was rock solid we couldn't move into production, and teams are going to want a break after sky league, along with various other events that may take place. Now is our opportunity to knock out every flaw we find.

It isn't about me or you being right or wrong, just us pointing out potential flaws and places for disagreement so we can find better solutions.

Already I know that I will have to rework the rules layout/ordering because about half of your concerns were just misunderstandings I think. I want the rules to flow and make sense so most everyone can understand it in a single reading. There are things I haven't updated from talks here, things I left out initially, and changes I noticed were needed but never made.

In short, I'm here because I want to discuss this. I will respond to any feedback because I want to make this as good as possible. ^.^
Title: Re: <Development Discussion for Official Competitive League>
Post by: redria on April 08, 2014, 10:41:56 am
Some general questions for discussion...
1. Referee Requirements
Currently I am requiring a referee to attend each match. The referee has to keep track of several timers.

Flex Time - time in lobby for teams to make last second adjustments if needed
Team Pause Time - each team gets 4 minutes of pause time if a player drops out
Server Time - 5 minute pool of pause time for server problems
Match Time - 30 minute matches

This is a lot for one person, and requires 4 separate stopwatches.
Additionally, I wanted the ref to post the time remaining in match at regular intervals for the benefit of viewers and players, along with a countdown if time is running out.

Looking at it, I am clearly putting a lot on the ref. Anyone have thoughts on how to better handle this?

2. Best of Ones
Currently the structure revolves around best of one matches. Using best of 1, it is easy to schedule matches 40 minutes apart with little fear of running over from long matches, and with casters/refs not being punished with absurd wait times if a match ends early.
As a counter to the randomness of best of ones, the teams will have selected a map they prefer not to play, and those maps will not be in the random map selection. This allows teams to fight on more even terms.

Best of 3 gives the advantage of determining the stronger team. It removes a lot of the randomness of games and allows teams to make changes to come back and win.
However with scheduled start times, if a match ended early, refs and casters could end up waiting over an hour for the next game to start. Event times would run much longer, and require more casters and refs.

There is support for both sides. Would anyone like to discuss how they see the argument in relation to scheduled league play?
My opinion was that the randomness of best of 1 is actually a plus. It makes games more exciting for viewers, casters, and players.

3. No-Show Reward
Currently, my structure punishes a team for not showing with 1 loss. This is only fair. They failed to show, and as such have lost their match.
The second level of that is that if a team fails to show for 2 matches over the length of the season, they are ejected from the league for that season. There would be no repercussions outside of the current season.

On the flip side, my current structure rewards the team that did show with 0.8 points.
I want to reward a team for showing up. They did their part, and it is not their fault that their opponent failed to show.
However, it punishes everyone else who does have to play a game if a team is given a free win.
My balance idea was a reward of 0.8 wins, which rewards a team, but not with a full win. Thoughts? Is this silly? Should it be more or less?

4. Map Lockouts
Touched on in 2. When teams sign up, they privately submit a map of their choice. For the duration of the regular season, they will not have to play on this map. For each match they play, that map will be locked out, along with their opponent's lockout map.

Is this sensible? I think it helps pit strengths against strengths, making for a more exciting match, rather than forcing a team to play on a bad map for their style.

5. Playoffs Time Limits
In keeping with the scheduled games, I want the playoffs to run in an organized fashion. However, in the playoffs a game cannot end in a tie.
Current rules:
30 minutes - If either team is leading, that team wins. If teams are tied, first kill wins.
40 minutes - First armor break wins
50 minutes - First component destroy wins
60 minutes - Both teams are disqualified

Now, these are terrible rules. How can we force teams to end a game within a reasonable time if they end up tied at the timer?
Title: Re: <Development Discussion for Official Competitive League>
Post by: Captain Smollett on April 08, 2014, 09:39:22 pm
I like the randomness. I think teams should not be allowed to avoid a map. They'll know weeks in advance what they're playing on and have adequate time to prep.

We should allow ties. .4 for each team.

Title: Re: <Development Discussion for Official Competitive League>
Post by: Squidslinger Gilder on April 09, 2014, 02:32:40 am
Defined season is great...if it is ironed out well ahead of time and you have a fair system for maps and it isn't dependent on who wins or loses until the finals then count me in. This is kinda the similar idea setup I was looking at for Red Skies. Do it!
Title: Re: <Development Discussion for Official Competitive League>
Post by: redria on April 10, 2014, 12:12:26 pm
Seems sort of interesting to me that the map idea isn't very popular. If no-one likes it I'll take it out. No problem.
Title: Re: <Development Discussion for Official Competitive League>
Post by: AbbyTheRat on April 10, 2014, 01:36:24 pm
Honestly, I prefer less random. I am much more in favour of allowing a team to prep for a map.. I do think, however, that some randomness.. maybe in situations of tie breaks. I also like best of 3 but I understand the constraint with casting. Maybe a mix, Bo1 for divisions then for the champisonship, Bo3 then the finals being Bo5.
Title: Re: <Development Discussion for Official Competitive League>
Post by: redria on April 11, 2014, 01:15:44 pm
Honestly, I prefer less random. I am much more in favour of allowing a team to prep for a map.. I do think, however, that some randomness.. maybe in situations of tie breaks. I also like best of 3 but I understand the constraint with casting. Maybe a mix, Bo1 for divisions then for the champisonship, Bo3 then the finals being Bo5.
Teams will know their maps, opponents, and times for the entire regular season from day 1. When I say that the schedule will be released by the Wednesday prior to the first day of matches, I mean a complete regular season schedule.

Tie breaks only factor in during playoffs. Otherwise games end in a draw. I think I said somewhere earlier, I want to preserve the option for all playstyles, while running to a schedule. Want to run a sniping match? Go ahead. If you haven't gotten to 5 kills when time runs out, the game is called (win, loss, or tie) and we move on. I'm not asking for 5 kills. :P

I originally considered extending to Bo3 and Bo5 for playoffs and finals, but every team will still be in one of the playoffs, and I want to run the playoffs in a single day each. with 2/3 of the teams n the Silver playoffs, there will still be a regular season day's worth of games in the one day. There continues to be time constraints even then.
But say we extend the playoffs to run multiple weekends for each playoff. Ignoring that the event is now growing uncomfortably long, it can be debated either way.
Running with the sports analogy and looking at championship finals,
American football is played at a neutral site, helping eliminate the need for multiple games to cancel out home team advantage. GoIO is played on one of 5 maps, which may provide a "home" advantage to one team.
+1 to Bo3/5
Initial matches in Baseball and basketball may be less interesting simply due to the games not determining anything final. This puts less pressure on teams to perform at a high level every game.
+1 to Bo1
Underdog has a better chance in American football simply because a single game may not determine the best team, just who happened to come out on top.
+1 to Bo1

Since we are locked to the rules provided by the game (I would love to set a time limit on a match and just say fight until time runs out, or set the win limit to 10 instead of 5) the decision is really whether the championship can fairly rest on 5 kills.
During the playoffs, I support best of 1, with the higher seed having some input on the map selection. Not an overwhelming input, but some sort of say to reward them for earning the higher seed.
The finals are strongly up for debate. I like the concept of it still being Bo1, but with only 5 kills ending the season, it seems frighteningly high stakes. But that would be viewing heaven as well.
Title: Re: <Development Discussion for Official Competitive League>
Post by: Captain Smollett on April 13, 2014, 12:49:12 pm
I have no clue who if anyone agrees with me but I always enjoyed best of ones.

Well not always... The suspense before matches was sickening but victories were euphoric.  Overall having that much resting on every match made everything more exciting and mental toughness just as important as skill.

Better to watch too in my opinion and of course less of a time commitment for teams.

Obviously one minor mistake can easily cost a match however your opponent suffers from the same disadvantage.
Title: Re: <Development Discussion for Official Competitive League>
Post by: Omniraptor on April 13, 2014, 03:17:26 pm
Things is, 'minor mistakes' aren't always the players' faults- sometimes there's a weird lag spike, or someone's computer crashes, and we don't get fair game.
Title: Re: <Development Discussion for Official Competitive League>
Post by: FluffyHetsche on April 13, 2014, 07:03:19 pm
Things is, 'minor mistakes' aren't always the players' faults- sometimes there's a weird lag spike, or someone's computer crashes, and we don't get fair game.
Basically what happened in the first Gents vs Overwatch match yesterday *cough*
There were no rules regarding a situation like this and the aftermath was.. frustrating to say the least.
Title: Re: <Development Discussion for Official Competitive League>
Post by: Omniraptor on April 13, 2014, 07:34:08 pm
@FluffyHetsche Speaking of which, amazing hwacha gunnery yesterday :)
Title: Re: <Development Discussion for Official Competitive League>
Post by: FluffyHetsche on April 13, 2014, 09:49:43 pm
@FluffyHetsche Speaking of which, amazing hwacha gunnery yesterday :)

I did what I could with the lag. Thank you!
Title: Re: <Development Discussion for Official Competitive League>
Post by: redria on April 14, 2014, 10:21:10 am
Things is, 'minor mistakes' aren't always the players' faults- sometimes there's a weird lag spike, or someone's computer crashes, and we don't get fair game.
But on the flip side, it is only odds that say that a game won't be turned by computer faults for every game of the match. Is it likely? Of course not. But the only way to eliminate that from effect would be to play an infinite number of games, to determine who is statistically better.

Yes, I'm being disagreeable, but I like the way best of 1 works. A team can practice all week and master a single ambush that will only work once. And they only have to do it once. Taking risks may be scarier, but then again taking risks may give you an edge for one game that you wouldn't be able to hold for 3 games. And that is where best of 1 shines: when the underdog/lesser team wins through a single well played tactic. If we were trying to just determine who the best team was, we could skip a lot of games.

Yes there are unfair situations. You may point to the match I played in on Saturday.

~Please note, this is my personal opinion, and I do not want this to turn into an argument. I will happily discuss the specific situation in private, but I elaborate here as an example, not fodder for arguments~
~I will also remove the specifics here if anyone feels it does not add to the current discussion~

During the Gents-OVW match with Sky League, OVW took Alistair and his goldfish. We have had him fly several times in the past competitively and he is an excellent pilot. I was looking forward to playing with him.
He also has crappy internet, and sometimes it just won't let him play. We played a few games earlier that day and we thought his internet would be able to handle it.
As soon as the countdown ended and the game started loading, he said on TS that his client had just crashed trying to load. We knew before the game had even started that he would not be able to fly effectively.
Rewatching the video, the casters did not realize that within the first 20 seconds of the match starting, both teams had stopped to wait and see if we could get Alistair back in.

I want to put out that I think that Urz handled the situation appropriately.

Given that there were no rules regarding the situation, the choice was to either let the opposing team make the decision on what to do (boiling down to either be an exceedingly good sport, or be seen as exceptionally poor sports), or make up a rule that hurts one of the teams without having been established before hand.
The ruling he made was that we could swap players out to maintain a full crew that wouldn't disconnect, or go as is. We tried swapping out players, but after that failed the first time, we didn't want to drag it out too long and resumed play with Alistair still piloting.

Urz made the correct decision in the match, and it is difficult to predict something like that happening, so I can't fault him for not being prepared.

Which all boils down to 2 notes I want to make having been shown another possible way for things to go wrong.
1. In the first 30 seconds of the match, if no permanent damage has been dealt, a team may request to restart the match to adjust players/loadouts. Doing so will sacrifice the entirety of that teams emergency pause time.
2. During emergency pause time, a team may shuffle players as needed between ships/positions, as long as there are no equipment changes at each respective position (if you replace an engineer with chem, extinguisher, buff, loch, and moonshine, you must take that same loadout).

Using our situation as an example, the match had not yet really started. OVW would have sacrificed the possiblity of any more pauses that match, in exchange for being able to bring a steady set of players to the game. The Gents would be given an appropriate amount of time to adjust ships/crews with no penalty in the match lobby.
I feel like that is a pretty fair balance between maintaining a timed schedule, allowing a team to handle problems, and protecting the other team from excessive radical changes.

Outside of those first 30 seconds, we would have switched to the rule Urz was employing, just slightly more defined. Players can re-arrange to accommodate drop-outs, but the match continues.
This specific ruling gives a time limit to the swapping, which would have given OVW a better indicator of how much time they had to complete their rearrangements, along with protecting the gents from the possibility of OVW changing their loadouts without the gents getting a chance to respond.

~Thank you for humoring me~

Regarding previous questions...
1. Players loading in slowly:
Players may make repairs, buff, load ammo, etc as soon as they load in. However, no pilot may move their ship until the ref begins the match, no guns may be fired, and no spots may be laid down. The ref will begin the match when all 4 captains have announced in match chat "Ready". Pilots are given 30 seconds to announce their readiness after the ref loads into the match. Beyond this a team's emergency pause time will be used for any further delays.

This gives all players a chance to load in. It takes the responsibility off of the ref to monitor all players to make sure no player moves before the game starts. It ~can~ be abused to give a team more time to prepare after loaded in, but the other team gets the same amount of time, and noone can make any game-changing moves until all captains are ready.

2. Player drops mid-engagement
Emergency pause time for a team may only be initiated if there is not currently an engagement. An engagement is currently defined at the discretion of the ref, though I would like to make it a clearer rule.
This means if your pilot drops mid engagement and your ship flies away, too bad. There is no quantifiable way to determine how things would have gone, and as such there is no way to determine how the match should be altered retroactively.
The only solution for this would be an actual pause button available that would freeze ships, players, and projectiles. Since we don't have one and are unlikely to get one, any mid-engagement problem will have to wait until the engagement has ended.

To give an example (again from Saturday), on Canyon Ambush with OVW and the Gents shooting at each other through the beam for about 8 minutes, I would not have defined most of that as an engagement. Shots were being continuously fired, but no real damage was being dealt to any ship, and the situation was not going to change unless someone moved as the Gents did towards the end. If a player had disconnected at that point, I personally would have approved a pause, with both teams awkwardly staring at each other through the beam.

The exception here is with slow-mo. If slow-mo is engaged in the middle of an engagment, the engagement will continue as normal until it ends. However, the match timer will be paused, and the Server time will be started. If Server time runs out, the match will be called according to server time rules. This means that the fight will continue as normal until the teams disengage or slow-mo lasts too long.
Title: Re: <Development Discussion for Official Competitive League>
Post by: FluffyHetsche on April 14, 2014, 01:01:49 pm
Those are rules I can get behind. That prevents the kind of delay, confusion and frustration we had in that match and everyone would know beforehand what would happen in that kind of situation.

My main issue (personal opinion, don't put that on the clan) was that Urz said we knew the risk because we chose to have a pilot living in Australia rather than considering that the DC problems started in that particular match and usually aren't that big of an issue (both teams also stated that there was an exceptional amount of lag and in that situation the match should really have been restarted). That's just all I have to say about that. It happened, it's in the past, but it could have been prevented.
Title: Re: <Development Discussion for Official Competitive League>
Post by: macmacnick on April 14, 2014, 01:24:44 pm
Now how would the server time scenario work if slow-mo initiates and the game mode is Crazy king? would you adjust the progression of time by altering it based upon the factor of how much the time slows down? (i.e the sudden death, etc?)
Title: Re: <Development Discussion for Official Competitive League>
Post by: redria on April 14, 2014, 01:45:43 pm
Now how would the server time scenario work if slow-mo initiates and the game mode is Crazy king? would you adjust the progression of time by altering it based upon the factor of how much the time slows down? (i.e the sudden death, etc?)
*Goes to sarcastically quote self from original post mentioning that the league will be operating on 2v2 deathmatch only*
*Realizes original post never mentioned that the League is 2v2 deathmatch in the original post*
*???*
*profit?*

The league will only be 2v2 deathmatch. There are other events planned/being planned/envisioned that revolve around 3v3+. This is focused on the 2v2 premiere competitive scene.

Longer explanation of the slow-mo:

I suddenly have the feeling that nobody is going to want to be a ref. XD
Refs: the unsung heroes of American football, hated by fans everywhere.
Title: Re: <Development Discussion for Official Competitive League>
Post by: macmacnick on April 14, 2014, 01:47:35 pm
...I feel that most of the rules could be slightly added on to to allow for regulation of 3v3 and maybe 4v4 DM (though probably 3v3 would be more likely to happen)
Title: Re: <Development Discussion for Official Competitive League>
Post by: redria on April 14, 2014, 01:50:56 pm
...I feel that most of the rules could be slightly added on to to allow for regulation of 3v3 and maybe 4v4 DM (though probably 3v3 would be more likely to happen)
For sure. And I think the scene could really use a 3v3 or 4v4 deathmatch event. It's not something I have ever felt a strong desire for though, so I haven't pursued that at all. If someone wants to copy this ruleset and arrange some sort of 3v3+ DM event, I would be more than happy to let them use the rules and/or help them develop it. The rules should transfer pretty easily with some tweaks and tests to figure out appropriate timings and such.
Title: Re: <Development Discussion for Official Competitive League>
Post by: Squidslinger Gilder on April 21, 2014, 06:57:05 pm
With the current meta, I think I could only stand to play 3v3 games anymore. Never have I wanted Gat/Flak back more in my life. Just bored with how things are.

Then the elimination tournament model we have currently is just getting old too. Got teams sitting on their butts for weeks. Leads to players moving on and less people spending time in game. Got folks showing up for practice but rarely outside of that. Heck I'd rather play Payday 2 most nights now.

Muse has to get moving but its about time this got moving too. Lets run with it!
Title: Re: <Development Discussion for Official Competitive League>
Post by: Captain Smollett on April 22, 2014, 12:39:54 am
I agree, this league should happen.
Title: Re: <Development Discussion for Official Competitive League>
Post by: redria on April 22, 2014, 06:54:44 am
At the moment (and this is of course tentative) I believe that Sammy, Puppy, and myself will probably set up and run this (but that could change!). I plan to set up a meeting between the 3 of us to go line by line through the rules and knock it into shape, then discuss casters, streamers, graphics, names, etc. There is likely to be a few weeks of lag time after Sky League ends, but this will be happening one way or another. If anyone has any questions/comments, post here or message me. Expect to see something in the next 2 weeks.
Title: Re: <Development Discussion for Official Competitive League>
Post by: Wundsalz on April 23, 2014, 04:55:17 am
Expect to see something in the next 2 weeks.
I'm teased.
Title: Re: <Development Discussion for Official Competitive League>
Post by: Velvet on April 23, 2014, 03:26:44 pm
At the moment (and this is of course tentative) I believe that Sammy, Puppy, and myself will probably set up and run this (but that could change!). I plan to set up a meeting between the 3 of us to go line by line through the rules and knock it into shape, then discuss casters, streamers, graphics, names, etc. There is likely to be a few weeks of lag time after Sky League ends, but this will be happening one way or another. If anyone has any questions/comments, post here or message me. Expect to see something in the next 2 weeks.
I think an open, community approach to developing rules & planning this event is better than taking things behind closed doors. Your trio won't alone have every good idea or raise every concern. Even the Sky League had issues with people being uncomfortable with the rules and Urz at least went to some lengths to involve representation from clans in the closed planning stage. Nevertheless it's yours to organise how you see fit, ultimately I will decide whether to involve my team based on the final product rather than the process and people who got it there.


Quote
Both teams should be in lobby with readies checked at the assigned time
Teams are allowed 2 minutes of flex time to make emergency adjustments
If a team fails to ready up prior to the end of the 2 minutes flex, they forfeit the match
I don't like this. heavily encourages the style of running "one size fits all" builds and limiting tactical variety to avoid having to do any planning in the lobby. Counter/situational strategies will get yet riskier and therefore less popular because if your opponent runs a build other than what you'd expected you won't have time to rethink your strategy before the time runs out.

Yes, sometimes lobbies drag on a bit and are annoying but I think teams that actually vary the builds they fly, adapt counter strategies and think on their feet add a nice bit of variety to the matches we see and would suffer a lot from this rule. I don't think there should be any rule that discourages a certain approach to the game in favour of another, it's both unfair on teams that have specialised to that style and reduces variety by pushing everyone towards the same approach.
Long lobbies are just another facet of the deep strategic experience of Icarus - it's nice if they don't happen too often but there's some things that shouldn't be sacrificed for the sake of speed and convenience.
Title: Re: <Development Discussion for Official Competitive League>
Post by: redria on April 23, 2014, 03:43:56 pm
@Velvet
Don't worry. The initial meeting I plan to review the entire ruleset and make sure everything is to ours (the committee's) liking. I'll publish that as a next-to-final draft and detail out the rationale on any talking points we hit when discussing the rules. With how community discussion goes on those points, there may or may not be a last update before the event itself is published. I made a lot of arbitrary numbers up when sketching out the rules, and all of the various time limits were part of that, which makes me uncomfortable. I had no basis for most of them other than gut judgement. They will surely be a point of contention and I hope to find the ideal middle ground during active discussions.
Title: Re: <Development Discussion for Official Competitive League>
Post by: Imagine on April 23, 2014, 04:13:14 pm
I think an open, community approach to developing rules & planning this event is better than taking things behind closed doors. Your trio won't alone have every good idea or raise every concern. Even the Sky League had issues with people being uncomfortable with the rules and Urz at least went to some lengths to involve representation from clans in the closed planning stage. Nevertheless it's yours to organise how you see fit, ultimately I will decide whether to involve my team based on the final product rather than the process and people who got it there.
Doesn't really work. There's never going to be a complete agreement between everyone, at some point whoever is making rules has to put their foot down and say this is how it's going to be. Otherwise folks will just run circles around each other forever.

Quote
Long lobbies are just another facet of the deep strategic experience of Icarus - it's nice if they don't happen too often but there's some things that shouldn't be sacrificed for the sake of speed and convenience.
Actually, in terms of competitive play, yes, long lobbies happen all the goddamn time. While I'd like to think that's all taken up by strategy sessions, too often I've seen it be just like two people chattering endlessly, or someone going to let their dogs out, or taking a poop, or getting something to drink, etc...

I'd not only say rules for lobby lengths but rules for stuff like how long to wait for someone to re-connect to a dropped match are extremely necessary.
Title: Re: <Development Discussion for Official Competitive League>
Post by: Wundsalz on May 03, 2014, 03:08:18 pm
It seems like we're currently left without events on Saturdays and Sundays. That's not a good thing - I think we really need 1-2 regular events on weekends to maintain a healthy clan-scene in the long run.
So... how's your League planning going, redria?
Title: Re: <Development Discussion for Official Competitive League>
Post by: Alistair MacBain on May 03, 2014, 03:15:20 pm
Can i just stay and say
soon ?
Its in the work. Just wait a bid wund ;).