You thought this would be short like the title? Well, i'm just tricking you into reading this.
BEWARE OF LONG POST
Let's talk about rulesets. Not that "no cheating" stuff. Unlocks. Winlimits. Timelimits. Halves. (in reversed order)
Forget EU vs NA (Am I allowed to say EU vs NA because EU won i49?), forget "this ruleset is better"-arguments, I don't care about that.
I want to hear your personal opinion.
Of course you can explain why you like or dislike something, although you don't have to, but please don't start with the "this is best, everything else is shit"-stuff.
This is not about existing rulesets either. You don't have to choose from existing rulesets, you can mix-and-match your own or even created new rules, i'm just listing the existing rules.
Because we're not talking about existing rulesets i'm splitting this into separate parts for each rule.
Feel free to expand my pro/con lists.
Something simple to start things off:
Halves or no halves? (fuck thirds, fuck quarters aswell, not the money though)
Pro:
+ the break might allow a team to recompose themselves and start a comeback
Con:
- a halftime break can disrupt the flow of the game
My opinion:
Show Content
I'm favoring no halves and rather giving the teams one free pause (no reasons/crashes needed, 5 min max) per map if they really need it.
In case of halves/thirds/quarters:
Switch sides?
Pro:
+ evens out asymmetric maps
Con:
- viewer confusion
- scores and logs get fucked up without additional serverplugins
My opinion:
Show Content
No switching. Unless it's A/D or PL the map should be symmetrical. If the side advantage is gamechanging i'd rather wait for the map to be patched.
Timelimit:
30 or 60 minutes or something else?
Pro 30 minutes:
+ forces pushes/action
+ shorter maps -> allows longer matches in terms of the number of maps
Con 30 min:
- "parking the bus" is easier
- might cut an interesting/close game short
Pro 60 min:
+ doesn't cut matches short (winlimit/windifference almost guaranteed)
+ "parking the bus" is harder
Con 60 min:
- waiting for clear advantages is possible (aka infinite tagg bomb loop)
- longer maps -> less maps per match
My opinion:
Show Content
Shorter maps ~30min -> more maps. I like more maps. bo3 > single map anytime for me. I thinks it evens out map advantages/preference out a bit.
Winlimit or Windifference or nothing?
Imho this is heavily teamlimit dependant. Watching a very unbalanced 60 minute game (think 30-0) will be boring as fuck, 20 minutes might be still bearable.
My opinion:
Show Content
Since i'm for shorter timelimits i'd say let it go on for as long as it has to be. Unless it's really uneven. "Mercy Rule" aka windifference ~5 for me.
And now to our favorite part, UNLOCKS. Please do not discuss about specific unlocks, people will be mad.
Unlocks
Options:
- none: fuck that
- minimal whitelist:
only add things that have huge impact on the meta aka kritzkrieg (even more hardcore than old EU vanilla)
- extended whitelist:
allow unlocks proven to be balanced and useful (EU now, AUS/NZ)
- extended blacklist:
ban OP, unbalanced, broken and "retarded" weapons (NA)
- minimal blacklist:
only ban weapons that are so batshit retarded/overpowered/broken/bugged that not even ugc plastic can be arsed to play against them (UGC)
and various other options between those.
My opinion:
Show Content
I'm leaning towards extended whitelist, maybe even further than AUS/NZ. Imo more good weapons = better. I don't like weird knockback weapons though (FaN, scorch shot, etc.) so no NA unlocks for me.
EDIT: I apologise to those feeling offended by my tl;dr.
You thought this would be short like the title? Well, i'm just tricking you into reading this.
[b]BEWARE OF LONG POST[/b]
Let's talk about rulesets. Not that "no cheating" stuff. Unlocks. Winlimits. Timelimits. Halves. (in reversed order)
Forget EU vs NA (Am I allowed to say EU vs NA because EU won i49?), forget "this ruleset is better"-arguments, I don't care about that.
I want to hear your personal opinion.
Of course you can explain why you like or dislike something, although you don't have to, but please don't start with the "this is best, everything else is shit"-stuff.
This is not about existing rulesets either. You don't have to choose from existing rulesets, you can mix-and-match your own or even created new rules, i'm just listing the existing rules.
Because we're not talking about existing rulesets i'm splitting this into separate parts for each rule.
Feel free to expand my pro/con lists.
Something simple to start things off:
[b]Halves or no halves?[/b] (fuck thirds, fuck quarters aswell, not the money though)
Pro:
+ the break might allow a team to recompose themselves and start a comeback
Con:
- a halftime break can disrupt the flow of the game
My opinion:
[spoiler]I'm favoring no halves and rather giving the teams one free pause (no reasons/crashes needed, 5 min max) per map if they really need it.[/spoiler]
In case of halves/thirds/quarters:
[b]Switch sides?[/b]
Pro:
+ evens out asymmetric maps
Con:
- viewer confusion
- scores and logs get fucked up without additional serverplugins
My opinion:
[spoiler]No switching. Unless it's A/D or PL the map should be symmetrical. If the side advantage is gamechanging i'd rather wait for the map to be patched.[/spoiler]
Timelimit:
[b]30 or 60 minutes or something else?[/b]
Pro 30 minutes:
+ forces pushes/action
+ shorter maps -> allows longer matches in terms of the number of maps
Con 30 min:
- "parking the bus" is easier
- might cut an interesting/close game short
Pro 60 min:
+ doesn't cut matches short (winlimit/windifference almost guaranteed)
+ "parking the bus" is harder
Con 60 min:
- waiting for clear advantages is possible (aka infinite tagg bomb loop)
- longer maps -> less maps per match
My opinion:
[spoiler]Shorter maps ~30min -> more maps. I like more maps. bo3 > single map anytime for me. I thinks it evens out map advantages/preference out a bit.[/spoiler]
[b]Winlimit or Windifference or nothing?[/b]
Imho this is heavily teamlimit dependant. Watching a very unbalanced 60 minute game (think 30-0) will be boring as fuck, 20 minutes might be still bearable.
My opinion:
[spoiler]Since i'm for shorter timelimits i'd say let it go on for as long as it has to be. Unless it's really uneven. "Mercy Rule" aka windifference ~5 for me.[/spoiler]
And now to our favorite part, UNLOCKS. Please do not discuss about specific unlocks, people will be mad.
[b]Unlocks[/b]
Options:
- none: fuck that
- minimal whitelist:
only add things that have huge impact on the meta aka kritzkrieg (even more hardcore than old EU vanilla)
- extended whitelist:
allow unlocks proven to be balanced and useful (EU now, AUS/NZ)
- extended blacklist:
ban OP, unbalanced, broken and "retarded" weapons (NA)
- minimal blacklist:
only ban weapons that are so batshit retarded/overpowered/broken/bugged that not even ugc plastic can be arsed to play against them (UGC)
and various other options between those.
My opinion:
[spoiler]I'm leaning towards extended whitelist, maybe even further than AUS/NZ. Imo more good weapons = better. I don't like weird knockback weapons though (FaN, scorch shot, etc.) so no NA unlocks for me.[/spoiler]
EDIT: I apologise to those feeling offended by my tl;dr.
RambadilianSetsultl;dr
NO, READ IT OR LEAVE!
k bye
k thx
No seriously, i'd rather have no replies than a reply to something entirely else because someone misunderstood something.
[quote=Rambadilian][quote=Setsul][b]tl;dr
NO, READ IT OR LEAVE![/b][/quote]
k bye[/quote]
k thx
No seriously, i'd rather have no replies than a reply to something entirely else because someone misunderstood something.
You should've just not put that bit in the first place.
It comes off as very obnoxious.
You should've just not put that bit in the first place.
It comes off as very obnoxious.
SnowyYou should've just not put that bit in the first place.
It comes off as very obnoxious.
In hindsight i really should've phrased that a lot differently.
[quote=Snowy]You should've just not put that bit in the first place.
It comes off as very obnoxious.[/quote]
In hindsight i really should've phrased that a lot differently.
I dont really have a problem with the addendum, but the topic is so wide it'd be hard not to also TL;DR in response :/
I dont really have a problem with the addendum, but the topic is so wide it'd be hard not to also TL;DR in response :/
at the beginning of your post you disregard the eu/na ruleset difference, claiming you want to custom tailor the ruleset. then as you progress through your theoretical ruleset it just ends up being the current eu rules.
that's cool and whatnot but what i can tell you is that na players are not concerned with or willing to change their ruleset as it stands. let me break it down for you. maybe eu is thinking, "wow, esea lan was boring" (so was every epsilon match until i49) "they should change their ruleset so the games are fun to watch".
there are numerous reasons as to why esea lan was not a spectacle. the ruleset was not one of those reasons.
also, since our matches are played through client-- team switches are done automatically. stats are not affected by this.
at the beginning of your post you disregard the eu/na ruleset difference, claiming you want to custom tailor the ruleset. then as you progress through your theoretical ruleset it just ends up being the current eu rules.
that's cool and whatnot but what i can tell you is that na players are not concerned with or willing to change their ruleset as it stands. let me break it down for you. maybe eu is thinking, "wow, esea lan was boring" (so was every epsilon match until i49) "they should change their ruleset so the games are fun to watch".
there are numerous reasons as to why esea lan was not a spectacle. the ruleset was not one of those reasons.
also, since our matches are played through client-- team switches are done automatically. stats are not affected by this.
Ruwinthere are numerous reasons as to why esea lan was not a spectacle. the ruleset was not one of those reasons.
you don't think the 60 minute time limit has any bearing on HRG's passive play style?
[quote=Ruwin]there are numerous reasons as to why esea lan was not a spectacle. the ruleset was not one of those reasons.[/quote]
you don't think the 60 minute time limit has any bearing on HRG's passive play style?
atmoRuwinthere are numerous reasons as to why esea lan was not a spectacle. the ruleset was not one of those reasons.
you don't think the 60 minute time limit has any bearing on HRG's passive play style?
Had the same bearing on Mixup and LGs aggressive play style at i46. Meaning it has nothing to do with it, different teams play in different ways.
[quote=atmo][quote=Ruwin]there are numerous reasons as to why esea lan was not a spectacle. the ruleset was not one of those reasons.[/quote]
you don't think the 60 minute time limit has any bearing on HRG's passive play style?[/quote]
Had the same bearing on Mixup and LGs aggressive play style at i46. Meaning it has nothing to do with it, different teams play in different ways.
lighten up with the -frags people. even if you don't like OP's style and conclusions this has the potential to be an interesting discussion.
lighten up with the -frags people. even if you don't like OP's style and conclusions this has the potential to be an interesting discussion.
lamefxatmoRuwinthere are numerous reasons as to why esea lan was not a spectacle. the ruleset was not one of those reasons.
you don't think the 60 minute time limit has any bearing on HRG's passive play style?
Had the same bearing on Mixup and LGs aggressive play style at i46. Meaning it has nothing to do with it, different teams play in different ways.
That's true. It seems like the recursive wait-pick-push method of HRG is a bit exploitative of the long timelimit though, and it didn't work for them at i49. Shade even said something to the same effect in an interview.
[quote=lamefx][quote=atmo][quote=Ruwin]there are numerous reasons as to why esea lan was not a spectacle. the ruleset was not one of those reasons.[/quote]
you don't think the 60 minute time limit has any bearing on HRG's passive play style?[/quote]
Had the same bearing on Mixup and LGs aggressive play style at i46. Meaning it has nothing to do with it, different teams play in different ways.[/quote]
That's true. It seems like the recursive wait-pick-push method of HRG is a bit exploitative of the long timelimit though, and it didn't work for them at i49. Shade even said something to the same effect in an interview.
you're right and they should have adapted like they are capable of doing but didn't and lost because of it.
you're right and they should have adapted like they are capable of doing but didn't and lost because of it.
lamefxyou're right and they should have adapted like they are capable of doing but didn't and lost because of it.
Just blame the EU ruleset for that.
[quote=lamefx]you're right and they should have adapted like they are capable of doing but didn't and lost because of it.[/quote]
Just blame the EU ruleset for that.
Ruwinat the beginning of your post you disregard the eu/na ruleset difference, claiming you want to custom tailor the ruleset. then as you progress through your theoretical ruleset it just ends up being the current eu rules.
that's cool and whatnot but what i can tell you is that na players are not concerned with or willing to change their ruleset as it stands. let me break it down for you. maybe eu is thinking, "wow, esea lan was boring" (so was every epsilon match until i49) "they should change their ruleset so the games are fun to watch".
there are numerous reasons as to why esea lan was not a spectacle. the ruleset was not one of those reasons.
also, since our matches are played through client-- team switches are done automatically. stats are not affected by this.
I put my own opinion in spoilers because it is biased.
FYI i didn't even mention ESEA Lan. Someone from NA mentioned somewhere here in the forums in the last few days that ETF2L would switch to then NA system and linked a etf2l forums discussion thread that eventually just had died out without any results months ago. My reasoning behind this was to get opinions from everyone, not just etf2l players and not just esea players. I didn't make it clear that this was mostly motivated by the potential etf2l rule change because i expected even more "NA system is better, just use it" posts.
tl;dr
I don't care about i49 and ESEA Lan. I don't expect you to change your ruleset, I'm expecting ours to change.
[quote=Ruwin]at the beginning of your post you disregard the eu/na ruleset difference, claiming you want to custom tailor the ruleset. then as you progress through your theoretical ruleset it just ends up being the current eu rules.
that's cool and whatnot but what i can tell you is that na players are not concerned with or willing to change their ruleset as it stands. let me break it down for you. maybe eu is thinking, "wow, esea lan was boring" (so was every epsilon match until i49) "they should change their ruleset so the games are fun to watch".
there are numerous reasons as to why esea lan was not a spectacle. the ruleset was not one of those reasons.
also, since our matches are played through client-- team switches are done automatically. stats are not affected by this.[/quote]
I put my own opinion in spoilers because it is biased.
FYI i didn't even mention ESEA Lan. Someone from NA mentioned somewhere here in the forums in the last few days that ETF2L would switch to then NA system and linked a etf2l forums discussion thread that eventually just had died out without any results months ago. My reasoning behind this was to get opinions from everyone, not just etf2l players and not just esea players. I didn't make it clear that this was mostly motivated by the potential etf2l rule change because i expected even more "NA system is better, just use it" posts.
tl;dr
I don't care about i49 and ESEA Lan. I don't expect you to change your ruleset, I'm expecting ours to change.
I think that the EU ruleset 30 minutes difference of 5 produces a lot more action than the NA ruleset and I'd personally love to play with it over the NA ruleset but that will probably never happen
I think that the EU ruleset 30 minutes difference of 5 produces a lot more action than the NA ruleset and I'd personally love to play with it over the NA ruleset but that will probably never happen
Ma3laaI think that the EU ruleset 30 minutes difference of 5 produces a lot more action than the NA ruleset and I'd personally love to play with it over the NA ruleset but that will probably never happen
This is what i didn't want to happen. EU vs NA ruleset. I was interested in what would you pick if you could choose freely on every aspect of the ruleset and not just blindly accepting one predefined ruleset.
Thanks for actually contributing to the thread. That's a lot more than most people did.
[quote=Ma3laa]I think that the EU ruleset 30 minutes difference of 5 produces a lot more action than the NA ruleset and I'd personally love to play with it over the NA ruleset but that will probably never happen[/quote]
This is what i didn't want to happen. EU vs NA ruleset. I was interested in what would you pick if you could choose freely on every aspect of the ruleset and not just blindly accepting one predefined ruleset.
Thanks for actually contributing to the thread. That's a lot more than most people did.
SetsulMa3laaI think that the EU ruleset 30 minutes difference of 5 produces a lot more action than the NA ruleset and I'd personally love to play with it over the NA ruleset but that will probably never happen
This is what i didn't want to happen. EU vs NA ruleset. I was interested in what would you pick if you could choose freely on every aspect of the ruleset and not just blindly accepting one predefined ruleset.
Thanks for actually contributing to the thread. That's a lot more than most people did.
Well I guess to get more in depth, when I've played EU pcws and used their rules vs the NA rules I think that having a time limit like that really helps. In NA it seems like a single game can go on forever and you can wait around as long as you want with no repercussions while in EU there is always a team that needs to be pushing and needs to take the lead. As soon as one point is scored one team is in trouble since they have to get at least 1 point in the remaining time limit, which forces that team to push etc. You can't just sit around and wait for the other team to make a mistake, the second you are down you have to come right back and be aggressive because time is no longer on your side. Thats what I personally like a lot about the EU ruleset.
So to be not EU vs NA, just generally I think having a limited time can be good but maybe that's just me.
[quote=Setsul][quote=Ma3laa]I think that the EU ruleset 30 minutes difference of 5 produces a lot more action than the NA ruleset and I'd personally love to play with it over the NA ruleset but that will probably never happen[/quote]
This is what i didn't want to happen. EU vs NA ruleset. I was interested in what would you pick if you could choose freely on every aspect of the ruleset and not just blindly accepting one predefined ruleset.
Thanks for actually contributing to the thread. That's a lot more than most people did.[/quote]
Well I guess to get more in depth, when I've played EU pcws and used their rules vs the NA rules I think that having a time limit like that really helps. In NA it seems like a single game can go on forever and you can wait around as long as you want with no repercussions while in EU there is always a team that needs to be pushing and needs to take the lead. As soon as one point is scored one team is in trouble since they have to get at least 1 point in the remaining time limit, which forces that team to push etc. You can't just sit around and wait for the other team to make a mistake, the second you are down you have to come right back and be aggressive because time is no longer on your side. Thats what I personally like a lot about the EU ruleset.
So to be not EU vs NA, just generally I think having a limited time can be good but maybe that's just me.
compromise and have two 15-20 minute halves.
I think halftime is very important. Not just to allow a team to regroup and briefly talk strategy, but also to force teams to switch sides. Mirrored maps like Viaduct play different depending on which side a team is on, Granary wasn't balanced for a long time, etc.
compromise and have two 15-20 minute halves.
I think halftime is very important. Not just to allow a team to regroup and briefly talk strategy, but also to force teams to switch sides. Mirrored maps like Viaduct play different depending on which side a team is on, Granary wasn't balanced for a long time, etc.