1. Implement the win-difference config in all divisions.
In my view this config should be made the gold standard for competitive 6v6 at all skill levels. It eliminates "parking the bus" as a viable strategy (something that is really only a problem in matches in the first place), and makes better use of 5CP's offensive/defensive map design. The main argument against this config is that it's too hard to understand, but it really isn't, and the config announcing when the winlimit changes in chat also helps with that.
2. Change the round timer to 4 minutes or 4 minutes 30 seconds.
We saw that a 3 minute timer was too restrictive even for high level teams, and that a 3 minute timer may have nerfed the attacking team too much by denying time for reasonable sac waves. Both the 3 and 5 minute timers are improvements from 10 minutes. However, 5 minutes is still too slow/does not go far enough. I think RGL should recognize that there is still room for reasonable experimentation with the round timer. I lean towards a 4 minute timer.
3. Implement the pick/ban system for all or most divisions.
I think expanding to allow Advanced teams to do pick/bans was a good move, but it's not like Main or even IM teams are too bad to be able to do pick/bans. Pick/bans increase the potential skill ceiling of every team and increase player participation and teamplay at no cost. If RGL wants to keep NC and AM on a set schedule I think that's fine (but not necessary), but there are basically no downsides to allowing teams in lower divisions to do pick/bans in the same way as Adv/Inv. (I also think pick/bans should be done minutes prior to map start, but that's more fringe on my part and more debatable.)
4. Only include new maps that are in active development.
Whenever considering whether to add a new map to the pool, the first question RGL should ask is whether the mapmaker is prepared and willing to change their map (even to a large degree) in response to being tested in the pool. Reckoner is the biggest example of why this rule should be implemented; any valid feedback about the map (the cap point under mid slowing the game down too much, the lower entrance into lobby that shouldn't exist, etc.) didn't matter because the mapmaker quit the game. It's not that most people mind playing new maps -- if suggestion 3 is implemented they can just ban them -- but that people don't enjoy playing new maps that never get updated or never have glaring issues fixed.
1. Implement the win-difference config in all divisions.
In my view this config should be made the gold standard for competitive 6v6 at all skill levels. It eliminates "parking the bus" as a viable strategy (something that is really only a problem in matches in the first place), and makes better use of 5CP's offensive/defensive map design. The main argument against this config is that it's too hard to understand, but it really isn't, and the config announcing when the winlimit changes in chat also helps with that.
2. Change the round timer to 4 minutes or 4 minutes 30 seconds.
We saw that a 3 minute timer was too restrictive even for high level teams, and that a 3 minute timer may have nerfed the attacking team too much by denying time for reasonable sac waves. Both the 3 and 5 minute timers are improvements from 10 minutes. However, 5 minutes is still too slow/does not go far enough. I think RGL should recognize that there is still room for reasonable experimentation with the round timer. I lean towards a 4 minute timer.
3. Implement the pick/ban system for all or most divisions.
I think expanding to allow Advanced teams to do pick/bans was a good move, but it's not like Main or even IM teams are too bad to be able to do pick/bans. Pick/bans increase the potential skill ceiling of every team and increase player participation and teamplay at no cost. If RGL wants to keep NC and AM on a set schedule I think that's fine (but not necessary), but there are basically no downsides to allowing teams in lower divisions to do pick/bans in the same way as Adv/Inv. (I also think pick/bans should be done minutes prior to map start, but that's more fringe on my part and more debatable.)
4. Only include new maps that are in active development.
Whenever considering whether to add a new map to the pool, the first question RGL should ask is whether the mapmaker is prepared and willing to change their map (even to a large degree) in response to being tested in the pool. Reckoner is the biggest example of why this rule should be implemented; any valid feedback about the map (the cap point under mid slowing the game down too much, the lower entrance into lobby that shouldn't exist, etc.) didn't matter because the mapmaker quit the game. It's not that most people mind playing new maps -- if suggestion 3 is implemented they can just ban them -- but that people don't enjoy playing new maps that never get updated or never have glaring issues fixed.
5 more suggestions for rgl:
1. faded than a hoe
2. faded than a hoe
3. faded than a hoe
4. faded than a hoe
5. faded than a hoe
need i say more?
5 more suggestions for rgl:
1. faded than a hoe
2. faded than a hoe
3. faded than a hoe
4. faded than a hoe
5. faded than a hoe
need i say more?
pick ban below adv sucks cos no one would ever learn clearcut or bagel or metal
the goal of lower divs should be to learn and improve, and forcing map rotation does that
also teamleader communication is unbelievably bad on average in lower divs so it adds a ton of hassle
if there were pick ban it would only make sense if there was like a 5 map pool
pick ban below adv sucks cos no one would ever learn clearcut or bagel or metal
the goal of lower divs should be to learn and improve, and forcing map rotation does that
also teamleader communication is unbelievably bad on average in lower divs so it adds a ton of hassle
if there were pick ban it would only make sense if there was like a 5 map pool
it would be cool if we got a star spangled banner performance before every match to make it legit
it would be cool if we got a star spangled banner performance before every match to make it legit
EnzoDBit would be cool if we got a star spangled banner performance before every match to make it legit
make sure they can sing well
[quote=EnzoDB]it would be cool if we got a star spangled banner performance before every match to make it legit[/quote]
make sure they can sing well
tiberiusEnzoDBit would be cool if we got a star spangled banner performance before every match to make it legit
make sure they can sing well
one player from either team has to do it and if they dont its a forfeit
[quote=tiberius][quote=EnzoDB]it would be cool if we got a star spangled banner performance before every match to make it legit[/quote]
make sure they can sing well[/quote]
one player from either team has to do it and if they dont its a forfeit
This is disappointing even for an RGL Thread.
This is disappointing even for an RGL Thread.
Jwit's not like Main or even IM teams are too bad
they are, that's why they shouldn't get to do it
[quote=Jw]it's not like Main or even IM teams are too bad[/quote]
they are, that's why they shouldn't get to do it
I'll respond in a lil bit. I agree w/ the 'faded than a hoe' suggestion tbh
I'll respond in a lil bit. I agree w/ the 'faded than a hoe' suggestion tbh
1. Implement the win-difference config in all divisions.
- I'll dm you to ask some questions about this.
2. Change the round timer to 4 minutes or 4 minutes 30 seconds.
- I've heard both sides on this. From what we've seen, the 5 minute round timer is clearly an improvement to the pace of the game. I've enjoyed watching the VOD's more with it. And, in higher divisions, I can see a 4 minute timer pushing the speed of the back-and-forth to a more exciting level. Still, we'd have to research this more; 5 minutes gives teams just enough time to coordinate creative sac's--especially in the lower divisions. Snake last has proven to be an issue with a low round timer tho. Idk yet. In the meantime, I want more suggestions on potential hotfixes to improve gameplay.
3. Implement the pick/ban system for all or most divisions.
- One of the differences between the lower and higher divisions is team leader participation. While I do agree the pick/ban system is better than the locked map rotation from a enjoyment perspective, requiring further coordination between teams in IM and Main could present more problems than it's worth. I could imagine it working in Main, maybe.
4. Only include new maps that are in active development.
- Agreed, I have some strong opinions on this. Encouraging community content creation is one of our MO's; that's why we're doing things like player-designed merch, community spotlights on YouTube, player focus groups, developing an API for developers to create more sophisticated projects (we'll announce more on our development projects later), and focusing on including maps that have creators who genuinely care to improve it (e.g., Sultry). Most of those points are beside the point, but I agree.
1. Implement the win-difference config in all divisions.
- I'll dm you to ask some questions about this.
2. Change the round timer to 4 minutes or 4 minutes 30 seconds.
- I've heard both sides on this. From what we've seen, the 5 minute round timer is clearly an improvement to the pace of the game. I've enjoyed watching the VOD's more with it. And, in higher divisions, I can see a 4 minute timer pushing the speed of the back-and-forth to a more exciting level. Still, we'd have to research this more; 5 minutes gives teams just enough time to coordinate creative sac's--especially in the lower divisions. Snake last has proven to be an issue with a low round timer tho. Idk yet. In the meantime, I want more suggestions on potential hotfixes to improve gameplay.
3. Implement the pick/ban system for all or most divisions.
- One of the differences between the lower and higher divisions is team leader participation. While I do agree the pick/ban system is better than the locked map rotation from a enjoyment perspective, requiring further coordination between teams in IM and Main could present more problems than it's worth. I could imagine it working in Main, maybe.
4. Only include new maps that are in active development.
- Agreed, I have some strong opinions on this. Encouraging community content creation is one of our MO's; that's why we're doing things like player-designed merch, community spotlights on YouTube, player focus groups, developing an API for developers to create more sophisticated projects (we'll announce more on our development projects later), and focusing on including maps that have creators who genuinely care to improve it (e.g., Sultry). Most of those points are beside the point, but I agree.
TaylorRGL
Change the Tie Break Rules.
Make Head to Head results more important than RW%. Reference Post #418 and beyond in this thread
[quote=Taylor]RGL [/quote]
Change the Tie Break Rules.
Make Head to Head results more important than RW%. Reference [url=https://www.teamfortress.tv/62147/rgl-s10-main-discussion-thread/?page=14]Post #418 and beyond in this thread[/url]
SpaceCadetTaylorRGL
Change the Tie Break Rules.
Make Head to Head results more important than RW%. Reference Post #418 and beyond in this thread
Oh interesting, I agree with this. Head-to-head wins reflect strength better than just RW%. There's too much RNG that affects RW%. The question then is how to automate the process or create a criteria to base it off. Let me think about this.
[quote=SpaceCadet][quote=Taylor]RGL [/quote]
Change the Tie Break Rules.
Make Head to Head results more important than RW%. Reference [url=https://www.teamfortress.tv/62147/rgl-s10-main-discussion-thread/?page=14]Post #418 and beyond in this thread[/url][/quote]
Oh interesting, I agree with this. Head-to-head wins reflect strength better than just RW%. There's too much RNG that affects RW%. The question then is how to automate the process or create a criteria to base it off. Let me think about this.
Ok, after reading the deliberation between you and DubThink, I have some thoughts.
I agree that RW% is likely a better indicator of playoffs percentage. However, the standard deviation of strength between teams around the 6-10th spots is likely less significant than that of the top 6 teams. Also, the 9th and 10th teams aren't in the population analyzed, so it's even harder to pin down how a 9th place team would perform against the 8th place team if rematched (because that data doesn't exist). So, intuition has to fill in because there's a hole in the data in that regard. It might still be the case that RW% proves the better team for 8-10th, but the question is: what is the most fun?
I'll think about this more and do some analysis, but my intuition is that in the event that multiple teams tie for 8th place, H2H wins (or even a play-in tournament like the NBA) would emphasize rivalries among teams of similar strength in a more fun way. The next question is how to develop a consistent criteria. No promises, but I'll deliberate with DubThink and maybe consult w/ you SpaceCadet.
Have we ever considered play-in matches in lieu of tie breaker stats?
Ok, after reading the deliberation between you and DubThink, I have some thoughts.
I agree that RW% is likely a better indicator of playoffs percentage. However, the standard deviation of strength between teams around the 6-10th spots is likely less significant than that of the top 6 teams. Also, the 9th and 10th teams aren't in the population analyzed, so it's even harder to pin down how a 9th place team would perform against the 8th place team if rematched (because that data doesn't exist). So, intuition has to fill in because there's a hole in the data in that regard. It might still be the case that RW% proves the better team for 8-10th, but the question is: what is the most fun?
I'll think about this more and do some analysis, but my intuition is that [i]in the event that multiple teams tie for 8th place, H2H wins (or even a play-in tournament like the NBA) would emphasize rivalries among teams of similar strength in a more fun way.[/i] The next question is how to develop a consistent criteria. No promises, but I'll deliberate with DubThink and maybe consult w/ you SpaceCadet.
Have we ever considered play-in matches in lieu of tie breaker stats?
honestly the bungalow/bulk w8b rematch this szn was really dope so just having the last week of the season be h2h matches/rematches between bubble teams would probably be pretty cool both for content and fair play
honestly the bungalow/bulk w8b rematch this szn was really dope so just having the last week of the season be h2h matches/rematches between bubble teams would probably be pretty cool both for content and fair play
unrelated to last string of posts but one thing I noticed while surfing old etf2l / esea teams is the absence of team pictures and descriptions from RGL teams
I know that RGL is trying to implement custom logos for teams and how they have been a mainstay for invite teams, but the absence of pictures for the lower divs is kind of disappointing due to the rules being very restrictive around how you can have one put on your roster
alongside this, I think implementing team descriptions to roster pages would be useful in order to relay a team's complete roster as well as their scrim scheduler to other teams in the div
unrelated to last string of posts but one thing I noticed while surfing old etf2l / esea teams is the absence of team pictures and descriptions from RGL teams
I know that RGL is trying to implement custom logos for teams and how they have been a mainstay for invite teams, but the absence of pictures for the lower divs is kind of disappointing due to the rules being very restrictive around how you can have one put on your roster
alongside this, I think implementing team descriptions to roster pages would be useful in order to relay a team's complete roster as well as their scrim scheduler to other teams in the div
for 3 years running:
CAN WE PLEASE STOP CALLING IT "TRADITIONAL SIXES" AND JUST CALL IT "SIXES" [img]https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/318475498143350796/1051008899492364328/Fjg55tRX0AEOIDG.jpg[/img]
they should have to call it Traditional Highlander
they should have to call it Traditional Highlander
brodythey should have to call it Traditional Highlander
Traditional Highlander and 7v7 Prolander
[quote=brody]they should have to call it Traditional Highlander[/quote]
Traditional Highlander and 7v7 Prolander
need me a cute tradsixes wife
need me a cute tradsixes wife
[img]https://puu.sh/JtNiC/f812923b11.png[/img]
loafeunrelated to last string of posts but one thing I noticed while surfing old etf2l / esea teams is the absence of team pictures and descriptions from RGL teams
I know that RGL is trying to implement custom logos for teams and how they have been a mainstay for invite teams, but the absence of pictures for the lower divs is kind of disappointing due to the rules being very restrictive around how you can have one put on your roster
alongside this, I think implementing team descriptions to roster pages would be useful in order to relay a team's complete roster as well as their scrim scheduler to other teams in the div
Agreed, I understand that this was something people really liked about ESEA. I'll look into that update.
[quote=loafe]unrelated to last string of posts but one thing I noticed while surfing old etf2l / esea teams is the absence of team pictures and descriptions from RGL teams
I know that RGL is trying to implement custom logos for teams and how they have been a mainstay for invite teams, but the absence of pictures for the lower divs is kind of disappointing due to the rules being very restrictive around how you can have one put on your roster
alongside this, I think implementing team descriptions to roster pages would be useful in order to relay a team's complete roster as well as their scrim scheduler to other teams in the div[/quote]
Agreed, I understand that this was something people really liked about ESEA. I'll look into that update.
GrapeJuiceIIIfor 3 years running:
CAN WE PLEASE STOP CALLING IT "TRADITIONAL SIXES" AND JUST CALL IT "SIXES"
Also, definitely will do this.
[quote=GrapeJuiceIII]for 3 years running:
CAN WE PLEASE STOP CALLING IT "TRADITIONAL SIXES" AND JUST CALL IT "SIXES" [/quote]
Also, definitely will do this.
if you dont want to implement pick bans please at least do something different than weekly maps, its so tiring playing the same map for 4-5 straight nights and then potentially not touching it again for 7 weeks before playoffs
if you dont want to implement pick bans please at least do something different than weekly maps, its so tiring playing the same map for 4-5 straight nights and then potentially not touching it again for 7 weeks before playoffs
purely spitballing here but what about one bo3 pick ban match per week
pros:
- no tuesday match means u still have serious time to prep for the maps ur gonna play (which is imo a big problem with pickban matches)
- one match a week allows for more flexible team schedules, which allows more ppl to play
- bo3 matches result in more definitive results
- 8 matches a season also prevents the later weeks' matches having vast skill gaps, or potentially having rematches
- matches would feel like a bigger deal. right now the difference between a scrim and a non-playoffs match isnt really meaningfully big imo
cons:
- bo3 matches are long. maybe they could start at 10est to allow for a short pregame warmup scrim? matches could also just be bo2, with both map results counted separately (ESL Pro League used to do this in csgo)
- picking and banning every week is time consuming and as i said in #3, requires communication. picks should be required to be finished at least a week prior to match or something
- less regular season matches overall could lead to unfair seeding due to strength of schedule differences
purely spitballing here but what about one bo3 pick ban match per week
pros:
- no tuesday match means u still have serious time to prep for the maps ur gonna play (which is imo a big problem with pickban matches)
- one match a week allows for more flexible team schedules, which allows more ppl to play
- bo3 matches result in more definitive results
- 8 matches a season also prevents the later weeks' matches having vast skill gaps, or potentially having rematches
- matches would feel like a bigger deal. right now the difference between a scrim and a non-playoffs match isnt really meaningfully big imo
cons:
- bo3 matches are long. maybe they could start at 10est to allow for a short pregame warmup scrim? matches could also just be bo2, with both map results counted separately (ESL Pro League used to do this in csgo)
- picking and banning every week is time consuming and as i said in #3, requires communication. picks should be required to be finished at least a week prior to match or something
- less regular season matches overall could lead to unfair seeding due to strength of schedule differences
brody
tbh bo2 like in etf2l sounds like a fine compromise
[quote=brody][/quote]
tbh bo2 like in etf2l sounds like a fine compromise
MidasOPif you dont want to implement pick bans please at least do something different than weekly maps, its so tiring playing the same map for 4-5 straight nights and then potentially not touching it again for 7 weeks before playoffs
NGL I think primarily grinding a single map for a week straight in scrims and offis was one of the biggest morale killers for every team I've been on so I hard agree there. The point about teams using pick/ban to avoid new maps is also very valid though
[quote=MidasOP]if you dont want to implement pick bans please at least do something different than weekly maps, its so tiring playing the same map for 4-5 straight nights and then potentially not touching it again for 7 weeks before playoffs[/quote]
NGL I think primarily grinding a single map for a week straight in scrims and offis was one of the biggest morale killers for every team I've been on so I hard agree there. The point about teams using pick/ban to avoid new maps is also very valid though
For a while I've personally been interested in trying the bo2 2 maps/week approach that's used in etf2l and ozf. I think the main argument against it in NA previously was that people were attached to half-time, but with the b4nny config growing in popularity, having bo2 b4nny-config matches might be a compelling preposition. They'd run longer than our current 1-map-2-halves matches, which might be a challenge, but the idea of playing two maps per week sounds really fun to me.
For a while I've personally been interested in trying the bo2 2 maps/week approach that's used in etf2l and ozf. I think the main argument against it in NA previously was that people were attached to half-time, but with the b4nny config growing in popularity, having bo2 b4nny-config matches might be a compelling preposition. They'd run longer than our current 1-map-2-halves matches, which might be a challenge, but the idea of playing two maps per week sounds really fun to me.
MidasOPif you dont want to implement pick bans please at least do something different than weekly maps, its so tiring playing the same map for 4-5 straight nights and then potentially not touching it again for 7 weeks before playoffs
+1 it's a non-stop grind every season to relearn a map to not touch until next season (in most cases)
A pick/ban with 2-3 total maps per week would be a better alternative.
[quote=MidasOP]if you dont want to implement pick bans please at least do something different than weekly maps, its so tiring playing the same map for 4-5 straight nights and then potentially not touching it again for 7 weeks before playoffs[/quote]
+1 it's a non-stop grind every season to relearn a map to not touch until next season (in most cases)
A pick/ban with 2-3 total maps per week would be a better alternative.