Guns Of Icarus Online
Community => Community Events => Topic started by: Swallox on March 26, 2013, 12:09:49 pm
-
This topic contains the official rules of The Cogs as of the 26th of March 2013. There's been a bit of confusion so let's get this all cleared up.
The Cogs Standings
Currently split into three distinct 'tiers', plus two newcomer spots that aren't officially part of The Cogs, the Standings look a little confusing on first glance... But let's break them down.
Tier One is the simplest. The Champion's Cog; This is spot #1. This tier does not rotate and the Champion team play every week to maintain their position.
Tier Two contains the Challenger teams. These are the top tier teams that are contenders for the Champion's Cog. Positions #2, #3 and #4 are present in this Cog and rotate on a weekly basis to determine which of the Challenger teams play to advance or defend their spot on a given week.
At the end of the week a team's Spot is rotated and reduced by 1. (#2 -> #3, #3 -> #4)
The team currently at #4 will be moved to #2
Tier Three is the Upcomer's cog, and features five slots ranging from #5-#9. This is the lowest official spot in The Cogs, but is certainly not to be sniffed at. Once again, this Cog rotates weekly to determine which two teams play that week.
At the end of the week a team's Spot is rotated and reduced by 1. (#5 -> #6, #6 -> #7, #7 -> #8, #8 -> #9)
The team currently at #9 will be moved to #5
The Newcomer's slot is split into two positions. #10a and #10b. Both of these teams should be capable of playing on the week, and the position is granted based on a first-come, first-serve signup list in The Cogs forum.
Advancement and Dropping
Each week, three matches are played. They are as follows.
Champion vs Challenger: Spot #1 vs Spot #2. Winner advances.
In the event that #1 can't play, #2 and #3 will play for spot #1 instead. In this instance, #1 will be moved to spot #3.
In the event that #2 can't play, #1 and #3 will play for spot #1 instead. In this instance, #2 will be moved to spot #3
Upcomer's Advancement: Spot #4 vs Spot #5. Winner advances.
In the event that #4 can't play, #5 and #6 will play for spot #4 instead. In this instance, #4 will be moved to spot #5
In the event that #5 can't play, #4 and #6 will play for spot #4 instead. In this instance, the loser will be placed in spot #6
Newcomer's Proving Ground: Spot #9 vs Spot #10a. Winner advances. Loser is removed from The Cogs
In the event that #9 can't play, #10a and #10b will play for spot #9 instead. In this instance, #9 is removed from The Cogs
In the event that #10a can't play, #9 and #10b will play for spot #9 instead. In this instance, #10a is removed from The Cogs
In the event that multiple matches are dropped or there are deemed to be too many fractured and impotent teams within The Cogs, a grand tournament in the style of Fjords will be held. Teams will be seeded with the positions gained within The Cogs. The tournament results will determine the Cog positions of each team.
Maps
Maps are randomly selected from the current pool of 2v2 deathmatch maps in the game. In the event of more 2v2 deathmatch maps being added, they will immediately be added to the map pool.
A map may not be randomly selected more than once per week. This means that Match 1 could be on any of the four current maps. Match 2 could be on the remaining three maps and Match 3 could be either of the two remaining maps. The maps are selected using a RNG and revealed three days before they are due to be played.
Match Specifics
Currently we are unable to enforce any ship or weapon-related mandates... And so a team is permitted to switch their builds and roles right up until the last second of the lobby's countdown timer. DO THIS AT YOUR OWN PERIL. If a ship is incorrectly fitted due to last second switching, the match WILL NOT be restarted. You have been warned.
There are currently no plans to include a time limit, despite some of them lasting for longer than your average cricket match. (I'm looking at you, Paddling). This relies on the players and teams not exploiting this to ridiculous proportions. If it is deemed appropriate at a later stage, reasonable countermeasures to team-dickery will be put into place. Likewise, repeated use of areas, tricks or glitches deemed unfair by Muse consensus will have consequences. Play it straight.
Each match is played to Five kills, standard deathmatch rules, on an American server. To prevent ghosting, the spectator slots are limited to unaffiliated Cogs staff only. That means no crew CAs too. Really.
Crew and Substitutes
Each team has to have a complete roster of eight members. Two captains and six crew, spread across two ships. Failure to provide a full crew roster on the day of an event is ground for an automatic loss and a compromise match. (Sidenote: Museosaurs are special case. I've mulled it over and there's no way that we can boot Bubbles and the devs out of The Cogs without serious hammer related repercussions. Also: We like the Muse guys.)
Substitutes and Backups are permitted, but they are not permitted to play for more than one team a week. This is to prevent floating players that switch teams and play every week, although it's not perfect. Players caught skirting this and playing for multiple other teams during their team's off-weeks to boost their positions will be dealt with. Let teams rise and fall on their own merits, not on the merits of their substitutes.
It was about time I got around to writing the official rules... Though I've probably forgotten quite a few things. Still, this is why we're a community. If you have any questions or feel that it's missing a section, post below or find me in-game, on Steam or on Skype. Just don't expect much from me... I'm still sick.
Stay safe.
-
First off Swallow, sorry to hear you're still feeling under the weather. Wouldn't have even known it based on the last live cast.
I did have two questions regarding rules.
1). When both sides want to have the same side, what is the protocol? In the past this has been decides by coin toss. I was thinking perhaps we should have a coin toss to start every match for consistency.
2) Two weeks ago in our match against the Crows some players were under the impression that games started when a ref determined both teams are ready. Since then I've heard nothing else regarding this. Is there any rule related to this we should know about or was it a misunderstanding due to the newness of the format?
-
I concur Captain Smollett. That is why I asked if the Pastafarians were ready before moving to make sure they were all in. But I agree to keep it fair and honorable.
-
First off Swallow, sorry to hear you're still feeling under the weather. Wouldn't have even known it based on the last live cast.
I did have two questions regarding rules.
1). When both sides want to have the same side, what is the protocol? In the past this has been decides by coin toss. I was thinking perhaps we should have a coin toss to start every match for consistency.
2) Two weeks ago in our match against the Crows some players were under the impression that games started when a ref determined both teams are ready. Since then I've heard nothing else regarding this. Is there any rule related to this we should know about or was it a misunderstanding due to the newness of the format?
1) I'm not sure, truth be told. The last time this came up, we flipped a coin. Seemed to work, so I guess we'll have a ref do that to determine who gets to choose the sides the next time around.
2) There are two ways of handling this... We either have a ref (or qwerty/me) say "Go" in chat, or we let the matches start when the loading screen ends... The latter is apparently unfair to several slow-loading players and the former relies on us having a ref and/or a clue. Up until week 2 we've been letting the matches go live the moment they started, but this may change now that Morbie and Teddy are helping out. So in short: Ask me later.
Oh, and thanks. I tried not to let my squick show through the mic. Glad to know it worked.
-
Coins? Oh. You must mean a D2. Hah.
But seriously, let's play odds or evens. One team is odds, the other evens, but captains PM swallow with a number from 1-10. The sum of both numbers determines the outcome. For instance, I pick odds, Zwaene picks evens. We both PM you, I PMed you '3', he PMed you '5'. 3+5=8, 8 is an even number, so Zwaene wins.
OR, we PM you either rock, scissors or paper.
-
Coins? Oh. You must mean a D2. Hah.
But seriously, let's play odds or evens. One team is odds, the other evens, but captains PM swallow with a number from 1-10. The sum of both numbers determines the outcome. For instance, I pick odds, Zwaene picks evens. We both PM you, I PMed you '3', he PMed you '5'. 3+5=8, 8 is an even number, so Zwaene wins.
OR, we PM you either rock, scissors or paper.
Or you have a harpoon Squid match to determine who picks.
-
Newcomer's Proving Ground: Spot #9 vs Spot #10a. Winner advances. Loser is removed from The Cogs
In the event that #9 can't play, #10a and #10b will play for spot #9 instead. In this instance, #9 is removed from The Cogs
In the event that #10a can't play, #9 and #10b will play for spot #9 instead. In this instance, #10a is removed from The Cogs
when you are removed, can you aply to the cogs again or are you banned from the cogs?
-
Banned seems far too harsh, I'm sure you can re-apply, at the very least after some sort of grace period. To me that makes the most sense. Given time and experience, teams that have lost would get better, why not let them have another crack?
Although, I suppose I shouldn't speculate and let Swallow address it.
-
i think that there should be a waitlist, when a new team loses they will be placed at the bottom on the list and have to wait for their turn again.
-
I suggest new teams can not sign up at the last minute. Maybe a deadline for new teams to sign up like on Wednesday before map is reveled or something like that. If they miss the deadline than they are placed in Cogs officially the week after . This would eliminate much confusion, and unfairness of team or teams not being able to practice.
-
I suggest new teams can not sign up at the last minute. Maybe a deadline for new teams to sign up like on Wednesday before map is reveled or something like that. If they miss the deadline than they are placed in Cogs officially the week after . This would eliminate much confusion, and unfairness of team or teams not being able to practice.
^This. We could have avoided that whole mess with the second Crows team with a rule like that.
-
Just a few thoughts of mine.
If we get new teams to participate - we could arrange more intermediate cogs, why not? We'll get 1 additional match per cog and provide a place for 3-4 teams to play.
Also if beaten from the Cogs team should tell the organizers if they wanna continue playing in the Scrimmage or not. If yes - this team gets the end of the queue to enter the Cogs again. In order to keep this queue not too long - see the first paragrath.
And agree with Aquamac about the sign up deadline to be made
-
i think we should keep it at 2 vs 2 and that the fight between the leader vs. challenger is a 3 vs 3 game
-
Newcomer's Proving Ground: Spot #9 vs Spot #10a. Winner advances. Loser is removed from The Cogs
In the event that #9 can't play, #10a and #10b will play for spot #9 instead. In this instance, #9 is removed from The Cogs
In the event that #10a can't play, #9 and #10b will play for spot #9 instead. In this instance, #10a is removed from The Cogs
when you are removed, can you aply to the cogs again or are you banned from the cogs?
Of course you can try again. Even I'm not THAT harsh.
I suggest new teams can not sign up at the last minute. Maybe a deadline for new teams to sign up like on Wednesday before map is reveled or something like that. If they miss the deadline than they are placed in Cogs officially the week after . This would eliminate much confusion, and unfairness of team or teams not being able to practice.
^This. We could have avoided that whole mess with the second Crows team with a rule like that.
Actually, that was the original plan... But I was told hours before The Cogs that muse couldn't play and I started to look around desperately for a third match. Just before Muse reappeared I even cancelled the third match outright because it really wasn't a good idea to expect the Crows to be ready to go.
[/quote]
Just a few thoughts of mine.
If we get new teams to participate - we could arrange more intermediate cogs, why not? We'll get 1 additional match per cog and provide a place for 3-4 teams to play.
Also if beaten from the Cogs team should tell the organizers if they wanna continue playing in the Scrimmage or not. If yes - this team gets the end of the queue to enter the Cogs again. In order to keep this queue not too long - see the first paragrath.
And agree with Aquamac about the sign up deadline to be made
Well, The Cogs aren't even remotely filled yet, so expansion isn't a huge concern... But in the event that we do end up with more teams than Cogs spot, additional cogs'll be added right on the bottom.
i think we should keep it at 2 vs 2 and that the fight between the leader vs. challenger is a 3 vs 3 game
I can't expect the top teams to field an extra four players, nor would they accept if it I tried to force it through. There are many reasons that all of the matches are 2v2 deathmatch, and they're not all about which maps and modes are the most interesting to play or watch.
-
lets just have a hardass rule that says, if you arent there on time, you dont get to play.
-
Crew and Substitutes
Each team has to have a complete roster of eight members. Two captains and six crew, spread across two ships. Failure to provide a full crew roster on the day of an event is ground for an automatic loss and a compromise match.
Its already there.
-
no alcoholic liquids are allowed, except moonshine
-
Currently we are unable to enforce any ship or weapon-related mandates... And so a team is permitted to switch their builds and roles right up until the last second of the lobby's countdown timer. DO THIS AT YOUR OWN PERIL. If a ship is incorrectly fitted due to last second switching, the match WILL NOT be restarted. You have been warned.
so it will be ok if the team will confuse their enemy by taking one build and changing it to another at the last seconds?
-
Looks like. Can't see that it can be interpreted any differently.
Although it's risky and I'm pretty sure some will see it as a dirty move. ;D
-
That happened to us on both sides with the Pastafariens, and so I brought that up in after game interview. They have no plans on initiating a ban on changing weapon load outs at last second, unless it is abused.
-
Your example Zitruskiller would be abusive, and unsportsman conduct to do so intentionality I would think. it is different if you are trying to match the other load out.
-
Crew and Substitutes
Each team has to have a complete roster of eight members. Two captains and six crew, spread across two ships. Failure to provide a full crew roster on the day of an event is ground for an automatic loss and a compromise match.
Does the captain HAVE to absolutely be in the captain spot? My style of playing is interesting and I prefer to fly as an engineer...
-
Crew and Substitutes
Each team has to have a complete roster of eight members. Two captains and six crew, spread across two ships. Failure to provide a full crew roster on the day of an event is ground for an automatic loss and a compromise match.
Does the captain HAVE to absolutely be in the captain spot? My style of playing is interesting and I prefer to fly as an engineer...
That role's actually called pilot, captain is an entirely different thing. If you want to play as an engineer captain in The Cogs, go for it. Hell, you can run without a pilot if you really want to.
-
Crew and Substitutes
Each team has to have a complete roster of eight members. Two captains and six crew, spread across two ships. Failure to provide a full crew roster on the day of an event is ground for an automatic loss and a compromise match.
Does the captain HAVE to absolutely be in the captain spot? My style of playing is interesting and I prefer to fly as an engineer...
That role's actually called pilot, captain is an entirely different thing. If you want to play as an engineer captain in The Cogs, go for it. Hell, you can run without a pilot if you really want to.
AH, haha I've always just called it captain, sorry. Thank you for clarifying though! A friend told me I wasn't allowed to do that.
-
Crew and Substitutes
Each team has to have a complete roster of eight members. Two captains and six crew, spread across two ships. Failure to provide a full crew roster on the day of an event is ground for an automatic loss and a compromise match.
Does the captain HAVE to absolutely be in the captain spot? My style of playing is interesting and I prefer to fly as an engineer...
That role's actually called pilot, captain is an entirely different thing. If you want to play as an engineer captain in The Cogs, go for it. Hell, you can run without a pilot if you really want to.
AH, haha I've always just called it captain, sorry. Thank you for clarifying though! A friend told me I wasn't allowed to do that.
Your friend is derp.
-
If i clearly understood, we (polaris) in week 7, will play against the winner in the muse-squadron match. If muse will win, can they fight against the challenger cog team, or they are always at the upcomers cog?
-
Theoretically, Muse can go all the way to the Champion spot. The only difference between the Muse team and the other teams is that Muse are allowed to play with AI crew members, 'cause they sort of made the game. (and they sometimes have trouble finding crew since they're, y'know, making the game.)
-
Also, we made the AI. If you make them, you can play with them on your team. So, you guys could like, bring your kids or something.
-
Also, we made the AI. If you make them, you can play with them on your team. So, you guys could like, bring your kids or something.
oh I'll let my 8 year old daughter have a go on a gun if we can't find a sub next time :P
P.S. - when making the AI... naming one of them Phoebe was bound to confuse people :(
-
what if both teams dont play?
-
are there any additional rules about killing yourself with a tarbarrel after the last week, or its allowed?
-
I honestly don't have a problem with it... And I'll explain why.
In order to off yourself in that sort of manner in order to save a kill, a ship has to escape from combat, find a quiet spot on the battlefield and then spent between 10 to 30 seconds tarring themselves, leaving them very vulnerable... It's an awful, dirty trick, but it's also ingenious in a way. It's similar to towerdiving in a LoL ARAM in a way, and it also allows a clever team to cut their losses and take a risk in order to refresh one or more of their ships for an upcoming fight. Note that in order to do this, the enemy team can't be chasing them. In other words, this is a tactic that only works against long-range teams, or teams that camp in favourable positions.
Yes, it's probably immoral, and if it turns into a serious problem later on down the line, with teams running away from fights to do it then we'll have to alter the rules to disallow it... But for now, it's a clever little trick to refresh a ship without costing your team that I fully approve of... And I applaud BFS for having the balls to pull it off in a Cogs match.
-
Tar is not the only way of suiciding, nor is it necesarily the fastest. It is admittedly most reliable if you have a Squid (nothing else can reliably enough run away). One way is to go for example: far from combat, pop your own baloon with hydrogen and let yourself die from impact damage (or you could combine multiple of these tehnics to be done in shorter anount of time).
It is not like tower-diving in LoL since kill will be atributed to the last chanpion that damaged you, if a tower or a minion kills you (belive me I swore many a time becouse of that). Even if he does a single point of damage out ot 3K hit points you have (+/- 500 for anything that's not in anyway tanky). Many have instead compared to creem denial - a widespread tactic of killing your own minion waves to preven nemies from getting gold for killing them. It's something that exists in DotA and DotA2, but not LoL. Why not in LoL? Becouse developers thought it damaged the gameplay by rewarding pasive/defensive playstyle. Reasoning in DotA2 for allowing that tactic was that it adds new layers of gameplay (if you kill too many of your own meinions you risk enemy steamrolling your minon waves and destroying your lanes too quickly). --I'm obviously on LoL side of this argument.
I think this an easily exploitable tehnic for any COGs worthy captain (unless enemy also has a squid). It makes squid for all practical purposes invincible. Pop in deal some mayhem, run away and kill yourself, till enemy is no more.
-
Long range battles don't require a squid to run away from. Specially ones in the canyon, fjords, or dunes. Just pull back and do it, pending you have engines functioning to do it. As long as the camper team doesn't move to press an attack, there is more than enough time to pull it off. It would be much harder to pull off with a bigger ship. Specially galleon due to the speed of it and size.
Dying from impact should still count as a kill for the opposing team since they were the last one that damaged you. The game does not really tell the difference between a crash based on enemy fire or one based on friendly fire.
-
Swallow, I hope you know that this could potentially extend the length of games tremendously.
If two teams are intent at fighting at range, then teams will just shoot each other until they've done permahull damage, pull into their spawn suicide then rinse and repeat.
This could actually cause games to go on forever if people master this. It's actually not that hard to pull this off in the middle of a close range firefight to deny the enemy a kill.
Really, how long do you want to cast each match? We have a lot of games to play Saturday.
-
Not if they close range and attack. If one ship is focused and hurt then during the time that it is attempting it, the remainder ship will be alone and exposed to a 2 on 1. There is no guarantee it'll have a close respawn so give or take that is 10-30+ seconds where that ship will not have ally support.
Only real crazies would attempt it in CQC. There is too great of risk of getting shot within the tar by enemy fire. The dmg tar causes is a small amount in comparison to flak shells/etc. True it ticks fast, but under attack in close range would be stupid to use it. It takes timing to pull it off and a knowledge of how low the hull is.
Think your blowing things up far beyond what they actually are Smollett.
-
This'll only extend matches if a team is passive enough to let enemies run away without giving chase.
And Smollett: Yes. I do mean the Paddling here. BFS have come up with a way to get around the massive damage output of sniping builds. I know how you might feel, but I'm not going to ban it. After all: I didn't ban Mercs, Artemis or LumberJack when others called for it, did I? I've also never added a match time-limit, despite certain matches going on forever.
Teams are just going to have to come up with a way to prevent teams from getting the chance to tar themselves and refresh their ships. I suggest moonshine and carronading them at the right time, though honestly you could probably screw up their plans with a well-placed merc shot too.
This isn't an easy tactic, nor should it be jeered down. It's innovative, and that's exactly what we want to see from teams in The Cogs.
-
2v2 scenario. 4 pyra's. The teams face off, and the end result is red gets a kill, and is left with one badly damaged boat. Being cautious instead of "meat grinding" into the enemy fire, the remaining blue boat hangs back for the respawn. Well in that time, the damaged red boat suicides and comes back along with the newly respawned blue boat. It's now 1-0 and blue loses their chance at taking out the damaged boat despite sacrificing one of their own to earn that "permahull" damage.
It's an exploit, and no carefully placed words or long winded speeches will ever make me think of it otherwise. Its a level of "tactics" that shouldn't exist to begin with, and should not be encouraged in game at all, let alone the competitive field of play.
-
This isn't an easy tactic, nor should it be jeered down. It's innovative, and that's exactly what we want to see from teams in The Cogs.
Lol. Sorry, I've never heard anyone call Suicide "innovative" with a serious face before. Continue.
Suiciding is something that goes beyond the intention of the game, to kill ships to score points and survive to not give them away. Deliberately not surviving because killing yourself doesn't count as a death (or counts as both a Kill and a Death eg. "Ship 1 killed Ship 1"), is obviously counter to the intentions of the gameplay mode ... this has been WIDELY known since the days of Doom and the rules for what constitutes a deathmatch were changed to reflect this, christ, it's even on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deathmatch . It's something that shouldn't need to be fixed within the ruleset of "The Cog", it should be fixed within the ruleset of the game itself, we're in the days of suicide tracking to give kills to the factor that most contributed to a death, how is a literally 20 year old view of how legitmate "deathmatch" works in any way "innovative"?
Even when specifically confined to GoIO gameplay, lyravega nailed it.
This is completely against the idea of permanent hull. It's not a trick, it is an exploit. Something in the game is abused to bypass another part of the game; suicide to bypass hull damage.
-
It's innovative, and that's exactly what we want to see from teams in The Cogs.
Disagree. It's an exploit.
-
I'm not sure why I feel a need to defend my position but alas here I go.
I suppose to many I'm coming off as biased because it is perceived that this "tactic" would work against a camping team which is how people, fair or not, view the Paddling, and would somehow give me a disadvantage. This could not be further from the truth.
I'm coming out against this because it seems to me to be an exploit unintended by the developers and goes against the spirit of the competition and fair play, unlike say mercs, lumberjacks, no time limit etc whic are intentional parts of the game design.
To be honest we've always known there were ways to do this (prior to 1.2 there were even more btw) but would never in good conscience do this in a match let alone the cogs.
I really don't have anything against BFS for doing it because in a competitive environment it's natural to do anything and everything possible to win, especially if it's within the rules. What I am disheartened by however is that now that this has been brought to the forefront of the community and condemned, it is being encouraged to be used in competitive play.
See this would actually encourage teams to camp their own spawn and never move. You don't need to flee to get out of combat, you just need to get two kills. I can't imagine how frustrated a team would be to charge a team camping their spawn, mortally wound a 1200 permahull galleon, die in the process, charge back at the enemy spawn again to try to finish the wounded Galleon and kill the teammate only to find the Galleon standing with full health.
There's just something that feels dirty about it, and I think people sympathize with it somewhat because it was done in a Squid and it makes me wonder; what would this debate have been like if Squash had done this in his Galleon?
This confers an even bigger advantage than already exists to the team that gets the first two kills, I fear we'll see a lot more conservative play and a lot more 5-0 matches for teams who don't leave their spawns or spend the whole match fleeing from enemies.
-
I have to agree with Smollett, i think people feel they can support it because - this helpless and ineffectual squid found a way to let its team down a little less. (note: Not knocking Gilder or crew but a squid is, well a squid)
When the paddling/Gents/Pasta start doing this in the galleon (cant afford not to), it wont be so cute.
-
the dutchman will not participate in this epic battle of words
-
If it becomes a serious issue rather than a sneaky tactic, rules will be added... Likewise, if Muse patch it out then it won't be an issue anymore.
Until then, The Cogs has no rule against suicide. In-game. Don't actually suicide. That's not cool.
-
Swallow can you update the cogs rules so we know what's allowed and what isn't?
-
So then if teams do attempt it...find ways to stop it! It doesn't take long to close range nor to get some long range shots off at someone doing it. Specially if they are in the open. The other ship will also be vunerable during the time their ally is attempting it. Come on you guys are some of the best at this game, use your heads!!
Now if this was 3v3...might be more issues with it. It would be harder to counter since there would still be 2 ships alive and able to dish out dps. Its not the best of situations but it can be defended against depending on the ships.
-
I could think of a lot of strategies to exploit suicides but I don't want to. I also don't want to have to come up with suicide counter strategies. All you have to do is say "No suicides" and everything is solved. Is anyone demanding it to be legal?
-
I'm with Smollett on this, if a Duck team had done this we would be getting lynched right about now.
-
I'm with Smollett on this, if a Duck team had done this we would be getting lynched right about now.
And if somebody had used it against you, it would be seen as brilliant and heroic, I bet.
-
In fairness I'd probably be harassing Swallow if someone had done that to us.
-
See this would actually encourage teams to camp their own spawn and never move. You don't need to flee to get out of combat, you just need to get two kills. I can't imagine how frustrated a team would be to charge a team camping their spawn, mortally wound a 1200 permahull galleon, die in the process, charge back at the enemy spawn again to try to finish the wounded Galleon and kill the teammate only to find the Galleon standing with full health.
This deserves to be brought up again. If on initial contact red team kills both of the blue team, it's then a race for them to suicide in time to invalidate any of the work the blue team did. It's obviously an exploit since it drives the game toward killing yourself to gain an advantageous position, and suicide after kills now becomes the Meta. If Muse had intended ships to reset after one side was killed, they would already do that.
It's poor sportsmanship, an exploit, and a terrible direction for the game wrapped in to one. I'm kind of surprised there's even a discussion about it as if it was a legitimate tactic in any way. Swallow, if you've already said yourself it's "immoral" and might lead to an obnoxious and frustrating, possibly game-breaking problem later, don't you have any cognitive dissonance about supporting, if not encouraging it?
-
Anyone else starting to wonder how this (the issue of suicide) is ... or ever was even a discussion? Seeing that there are obviously a hundred one reasons why it shouldn't be allowed and no good reason why it should be, other than to be disrespectful or create drama or a plethora of other negative things that this community has done so amazingly well thus far to avoid. My mind is beginning to boggle.
-
Knoxi, it's because of this: http://www.twitch.tv/qwerty2jam/b/402287974
Go to 1:40:30 and you'll see the first time in a competitive match it was used. I don't think anyone's saying "Black Flight shouldn't of done it", but the question that people asked is "should this be allowed?" Swallow recently said in this forum the answer is "Yes, it is allowed", and so people are questioning that. That's what this thread is for.
So that's why!
-
I'm glad Smollett elaborated on things a little. This isn't really about The Paddling or BFS. We were just the ones who let the genie out of the bottle who opened pandora's box, causing all the worms contained in all the cans in the world to burst out.
A great deal of the arguments for and against this tactic are based on speculation at this point. I'm pretty sure that's why Swallow is continuing to allow it. It could turn out to be an occasional risk/reward tactic that sometimes goes horribly wrong, or it could indeed be something everyone uses all the time that breaks the game and has to be changed. Thing is, changing the Cogs or the mechanics of GoI based on one moment in one game is pretty dramatic, and I can see why Swallow and Muse would go with the "wait and see" approach instead. Personally, I don't have any particular attachment to suicide tactics one way or the other, and I'll adapt to the changes best I can on the rocky road to GoI becoming more well-balanced.
-
Knoxi, it's because of this: http://www.twitch.tv/qwerty2jam/b/402287974
Go to 1:40:30 and you'll see the first time in a competitive match it was used. I don't think anyone's saying "Black Flight shouldn't of done it", but the question that people asked is "should this be allowed?" Swallow recently said in this forum the answer is "Yes, it is allowed", and so people are questioning that. That's what this thread is for.
So that's why!
Yeah, I've watched the match. I understand that it's impossible to punish a team for something that isn't against the rules of a competition, not sure if I somehow implied that, if so it wasn't intentional.
And I've been listening to people asking the "...should this be allowed?" question a lot...
My retort is, "Why is, in any sane world, the question even being asked?", let alone being dragged out for this long.
Deliberately suiciding to bypass hull damage is against the spirit of the community, the spirit of sportsmanship, the spirit of competition, and allowed or not it's still an exploit by any definition.
And the sad fact is, everyone knows, having seen that video, that this was not the first time Black Flight have done this. It was calculated, planned, and well executed with intent knowing they needed to suicide and knowing they needed to do so whilst hidden, whilst avoiding damage to not be penalised a death. How many public games was this used in prior to this ... and how many after? In other games we're all familiar with, not reporting and then exploting is a bannable offense.
Yet seemingly intelligent and respectful people are "asking" whether this should be allowed... whilst others defend it or try and validate it. To what end? Why?
The only reason I can come up with is, it made a stream and competition narrative seem a little more exciting. At the cost of what? Everyone rushing to suicide after each engagement to try and get the upper hand on permahull that's exploited to no longer be permanent.
Stop asking whether it should be allowed and thereby validating it. Ask whether you want to be taking part in a competition where exploiting is not only condoned but heralded as intelligent and innovative. Sure, don't punish Black Flight for exploiting, but to then create a situation where teams will be punished if they don't ... with no intention to offend, I find that disgusting and I doubt I'm the only one.
-
...Well it's good to see some people keeping an open mind.
IF (I will stress this again) IF it turns out to be a genuine problem rather than an occasional sneaky tactic, it will be disallowed in Season 2. However, if this turns out to be the counter to sniping teams, I am not going to remove it before the teams have had a fair chance to use it.
I am not willing to remove what could potentially be an interesting manuver because of knee-jerk reactions based on what certain people think might happen. I haven't seen anything yet to suggest to me that suiciding is going to be a widely exploited tactic.
And while we're on the subject, this DOES exist in other games. Anything from jumping off a building or leaping on your own grenade in an FPS to killing your own minions or even allied champions in MOBAs. It's called Denial, and it's been a part of gaming since some bright spark decided that he didn't quite want to give someone else a kill in quake or unreal tournament.
Exploiting a game's mechanics for the benefit of you or your team is usually wrong. The quick repair trick or the Ai fire extinguisher, for instance, are exploits because they're obviously underhanded and come with no visible downside... But suiciding a ship and denying a camping enemy a kill takes time and is inherently risky.
Until it is proven in-game that denial is not suitable for a GoIO match, I am not going to take action against the teams that might decide to use it. Much like tower diving in ARAM LoL, this is obviously a polarising issue that some teams have taken issue with... And if you find yourself in that position, it might be worth considering how and where your opponents may try to deny themselves. It could turn out that with a some foresight and a little moonshine, you could secure a kill from an attempted denial with a single round of gatling and turn that team's denial into a huge fail.
In short: Consider how this can benefit either side depending on the situation, and find a way to deal with it in-game rather than just screaming for it to be banned... Because I didn't ban mercs to curb sniping, I didn't ban artemis launchers when they were clearly broken... And until it's proven that denial is unsustainable for the competitive environment or Muse recode the game so that suicides are rendered useless and award the other team a kill anyway, I am not going to remove the option from The Cogs.
-
Knoxi, While I do understand your frustration, Please refrain from personal attacks, as it goes against our Code of conduct:
2. Trolling/Harassment
Trolling or harassment includes personal verbal attacks, insults, communicating or behaving in a manner which is offensively coarse, intimidating or threatening, making unwelcome sexual advances, or engaging in other activities intended or likely to cause disruption, annoyance or alarm. You may not harass, threaten, or troll other players or representatives of Muse Games.
I am removing your post for now...
~Shink
-
I apologise, I didn't realise stating the community standards or refering to my big shiney Junker was against the Community standards. I'II avoid making unwelcome sexual advances in future.
-
I'm not convinced suiciding will be a widely-exploited tactic. I am very convinced it is an exploit, and that it is therefore an invalid tactic that has no place in the community. Whether it is 'widely' or 'occasionally' exploited is immaterial.
The narrow argument for having this tactic considered 'acceptable' is that it's a counter to sniping. In what way is that at all true? It denies the sniping team a kill, true, but the team suiciding doesn't gain a kill. They just run and die. As mentioned earlier by probably Smollett, it has the obvious conclusion of dragging an already long sniping match out further.
I would equate it to a beanball (which for those not familiar in baseball is intentionally hitting a batter with a pitch to walk them instead of allowing them to hit, usually used against powerful hitters). You might claim that, since the rules account for being hit by a pitch, it's a legitimate tactic. However, for intentionally beaning a batter, pitchers are ejected from games and fined large sums of money. Because it's unsportsmanlike, an 'exploit', and cheating in all reality. Just because it can be done in the construct of the game doesn't mean it should be, or should be tolerated.
-
I am very convinced it is an exploit
Therein lies the problem. I'm not convinced yet. The arguments I've heard against denial all go back to the same point. That "It's an exploit" or that "It's unsportsmanlike".
I'd say that flying around someone while spouting flame and harpoons into their airship is fairly unsportsmanlike, and as for it being an exploit, I addressed that above.
-
Say if team Red, is just slightly better than team Blue, and would win in a 2v2 encounter, but team blue had disabled team red and brought the perma health down, Blue could suicide while Red is respawning and bring themselves back to full, then team Red would win the 2v2 encounter AGAIN, and repeat, it give team Blue (the slightly not as good) team left with no progress on defeating Red. It's like a tool that could repair all of the perma, OP it would be nerfed!
-
Therein lies the problem. I'm not convinced yet. The arguments I've heard against denial all go back to the same point. That "It's an exploit" or that "It's unsportsmanlike".
I'm 100% in agreement with Swallow here. Regardless of sportsmanship, it should be allowed if it's a feature working as designed. But also, if it in fact is an exploit, it should obviously be banned. I don't think this conversation can progress at all until someone from Muse tells us if it's a feature working as intended, or an exploitable bug.
-
We probably would have said something by now if Eric wasn't on vacation and all the programmers weren't frantically fixing stuff. Don't worry, we aren't ignoring this -- we'll discuss and get back to you.
-
I am very convinced it is an exploit
Therein lies the problem. I'm not convinced yet. The arguments I've heard against denial all go back to the same point. That "It's an exploit" or that "It's unsportsmanlike".
I'd say that flying around someone while spouting flame and harpoons into their airship is fairly unsportsmanlike, and as for it being an exploit, I addressed that above.
No. Im pretty sure I posted a wikipedia link validated by industry professionals regarding free suicide being removed from deathmatch rule sets 20 years ago.
You then posted free suicide and denial was still allowed in games. When this is infact not true, you cannot suicide un punished in a deathmatch, you lose a kill or gain a death. Neither can you self deny in a MOBA without losing gold, gaining a death and losing any stacks or buffs.
You claim to be keeping an open mind, but have continually ignored information and gone so far as to make incorrect statements to validate your position on this matter.
I hope you can understand that this is very frustrating. As this issue is in reality very simple on every conceivable level when all correct information is considered in its entirety.
-
Dead horse is dead. Swallow does run the whole thing, and I think it's fair to allow him to set the rules to his own competition. Knoxi, you make good points, but this is starting to get a little personal, I think.