Feedback from matches

Now that we've started, let's use this thread for feedback regarding how the rules are going for match play.

Thanks to [Geno] for the post about respawning and new round.

DO NOT USE THIS THREAD TO BITCH AND MOAN!!!

This is for feedback only and to determine if any tweaks need to be made by the Admins. If you can't do so in a constructive manner, don't bother. Thanks.

[OTC]Yomm
Post edited by Yomm at 5/24/2002 9:23:31 AM

I thought it was a bit tooo much rush rush, like you couldn't get into the game just in that 1 round......and then it swiches.

Also yeah there are problems restarting the round, so do it 2 times, then it should help most people.

There was some team kills but it wasn't massive, but there were enough of them.


[Spynes]

My only take was more rounds. I'd like to see the matches last a bit longer. I felt rushed and didn't actually groove until the 2nd map which was too late. Two rounds per sides perhaps or possibly I need longer callisthenics before the match actually starts. I can give more input once we play more matches.

Observations:

We goofed off for 10 minutes or so in the SirLanka map prior to changing to the first official Match map.

There is a lot of pressure to "do it right the first time" when playing one round each side but then that is what competition is about and the tactical planning starts before the match.

Like we did, the warm up and settling in period prior to the match is a courtesy that ought to be afforded everyone - matches are serious but without them being cooperatively fun, folks may lose interest.

The server was set to play one round on the map and then it changed maps - we simply voted the map change back to the match map and switched sides. I am not sure this was good nor bad but it worked.

After the match, our team plus an additional one or two members all went pubbin together and we played for another hour and a half. Considering the actual time played in the match (around 40 minutes)I don't think any of us would be against increasing the rounds played per side.

Tiebreaker maps.

One thing I dont' like is how the tiebreaker map is picked. Having for example, USA or Mexico has signifigant advantages for one side. I dislike that. I rather have a 50/50 Anartica and play it a few times until some actually wins the match instead of a cheeseball win.

Our match didn't make it to the tiebreaker and as defender I picked SChinaSea and -sl- picked to play the Pirates.

On tiebreaker maps, one team picks the map and the other team chooses the side to play for one round.

Personally, I would choose Mexico for a tiebreaker and be happy with playing either side but then that's just me. Some of the maps I would not want to play as tiebreakers.

Presently the defender picks the tiebreaker map. As the defender one asks himself "do I pick a map that gives the attacker a distinct advantage playing one side verses the other"

i like playing almost any map as any side. SO ...

The format was definitely fair, but maybe not ideal. I wasn't too into restarting the map, not keeping cash between rounds, and only playing two rounds per map.

I think I would have had more fun with 4 rounds per map, keeping cash between rounds, and switching sides a b b a. It would have resulted in a longer match, and it might not have been quite as fair, but I think I would have enjoyed it more.

Keeping cash between rounds allows the bigger weapons to come out more often. It will happen but I don't expect to see many 50 cal sniper guns in these matches.

There's also a bug in 2.0 where if someone is waiting for deployment while the map is restarted, that person won't be able to spawn correctly or buy any weapons. Everyone needs to be alive in order for the restart to happen correctly.

I just noticed that there is a match scheduled (C2A vs BIA) which has Antarctica chosen as the tiebreaker map. The script (or whatever it is) controlling the challenge process needs to be updated so that those maps which can result in a double loss are not eligible to be chosen for the tiebreaker.

well there's a simple way to avoid double loss, but nobody seems to like it.

You're right deku. NOONE likes that idea of playing a map and if there is a double loss to take the kills per side into account. It becomes a frag war with noone caring bout the objective, suicide bomber types and just annoying spawning just with gas to get the other team gassed up not caring bout respawning and shit like that. All maps with double losses were taken out of the tiebreaker rotation. I think it is a good idea to have win/lose maps only as the tiebreaker. Just my 2 cents lol.

Talk to you all later.



[RDH] GOD [KA] - I got my eye on you.

Spynes, under the current rule set, I would suggest that you have Polaris edit the tiebreaker map list (map currently picked by defender) to include only these maps:

The tiebreaker maps.

· Mexico
· Argentina
· Columbia
· USA
· SChina Sea
· Sir Lanka
· Chechnya

Matches are going way too quick. We just played a match, it couldn't have taken more then 30-40 mins.

Also, I think Anartica is probably the most balanced tiebreakermap there is. Just my 2 cents, if you are that closely matched and need a good map to finish. Make the victor earn it as opposed to getting some cheeseball win South China Sea or someting.

Thus far, most of the matches have been running around and average thirty minutes - this is too short of a time, I agree.

There is not yet any official tiebreaker maps. The purpose of picking the above maps is that it forces a win of one side or the other in one round. Now I suppose we could write the rules in a way that a map like Antarctica (I really enjoy playing this map)would be played until one side or the other wins the map - so theoretically then we could use any map now considered a "double loss" map. I wouldn't be agaist such a proposal.

Furthermore, if we increase the rounds played in the first two maps, how often you think there will be a tiebreaker?

tcl, though this is opposite of the way the rules are written (we change the rule or reverse the selection process)presently the defender picks the third map and therefore the attacker chooses the side - communicated thru the match comm.

Hey, how about we try those rules that we (spynes, me, theman, yuk, etc) came up with in IRC next week for matches, to kinda compare them to these ones. See firsthand what works better.

Just curious, but what would happen in the event that a CLIENT/SERVER out of synch drops half the server in Argentina?

I don't play on TWL this is just my curiousity speaking.

yes, these are the threads we need :]

Vlasic tell me what would happen if a CLIENT/SERVER out of synch message DROPPED 8 people at once on Argentina. Do you play GO? Do you know I'm talking about?

Look, a serious question from MOI.

I think this is a big issue as well.

Server Crashes

In the event of a server crash, if both teams can agree upon the remaining time and score, the map will be restarted with the remaining time and score intact. If there is a dispute the entire map will be restarted.

That would count as a server crash, I would think.

Although in T2, we have a similar situation where several people can drop from a game at the same time (Called a Massive UE) and most teams just play through it.

Technically, I guess it would be a crash, but what it does is BOOTS "X" amount of people from a server.

Meaning in a 16/16 game, you could have 2 or 3 people get booted yet the other 13 would still be there.

So it isn't EXACTLY a server crash.

If I may.. We had a macth last night and I noticed that when u restarted teh map.. people that were dead when the map restarted were te ones who were screwed up...

All servers should (my opinion)

1) Tell everyone that their gonna restart the map
2) Ask if everyone is alive
3) Give a warning to give everyone a chance to get alive
4) Restart new round once everyone is alive


The players should (my opinion again)

1) Once the server says they restarting they should go back to their respawns (if their not) and should stop shooting altogether (thats means not one more shot)
2) Say if their alive or not
3) The leader should give a go to teh server
4) Wait for round to restart

JesTer

Since it's a regular occurance, it should be expected and played through, then, just like UEs in Tribes2 and flag skipping in Tribes 1.

Every game has weird quirks like this..it's best to just expect them and play through it

Jester, they should do like a role call or something like that before the match.

Just make sure each team has someone say "AYE" before anyone gets underway.

AND!!!!

IF I MIGHT ADD A SUGGESTION!!!

For extra security during matches in making sure everything goes ok, have TWO IMPARTIAL PEOPLE sit in for BOTH TEAMS as Intel Officers. This way they can monitor everything going on. I dunno, nevermind, stupid idea. LOL.

Creamy I opened your real account up to the forum since you stopped being an inflammatory troll :/

Does that mean I can start again? :P

Haha, just kidding.

I think the question is about the Argentina map in particular. The map is bugged and the server
can't handle it. No other maps drop with the regularity of Argentina, and as such it should probably
be removed until they fix the server code to handle it. I understand playing through drops, but
Argentina consistently kicks half the players at random intervals. Seems to happen more on
server version 2.0 than on 1.x

Yes, then I would say remove the map until it's fixed

Jorge, it never happened before 2.0.

I suggest it gets dropped from competitive play because there are too many issues with the map.

About argentina - never yet had a problem with it and as far as I know there has been no problems with it on our server - I love to play that map.

Our match with SAS tonight reminds me to say first, restart the map to go "live" once everybody is spawned or things get screwed up - that means don't be tking your teammates while we wait for others to spawn.

It also brings up another point I think should be in the rules if we can decide what the rule ought to be.

The question is what should be the protocol to follow if a match starts out with all the players and then some leave the match voluntarily after a few rounds thereby leaving (in this case) the defending team short of players?

I am not sure.

I think as long as the players don't dip below 4-5 it should be ok (I really had to leave !)

I understand that Deku and don't have a problem with that, but what I am asking is the protocol. For instance, what happens when the next round will determine the winner and all of a sudden one team is voluntarily short of players. Should there be a forfeit if the team does not wish to proceed? I am thinking that if we don't have a rule that covers this sort of circumstance we may have a lot of needless complaints going to the admins.

Just to add something to this topic.

All the client-server issues can be resolved now with the new server patch.

Its an anti-speed hack measure and the option can now be turned off.

So obviously you wouldn't have to worry about a speed hack during clan matches because everyone SHOULD be responsible enough.