A half time would be really good i'd love to see etf2l put that in, i'm getting slightly off topic here but it kind of annoys me that the community doesn't really get included in any decisions for etf2l i know the prem players get asked and decisions are made based off that but wouldn't it be nice for things like the map pool to be decided by a community vote? maybe i'm just salty because i loved metalworks and despise turbine but i can't see a vote being a bad thing

Edit: nvm no worries birdy

sorry d4mo i edited my post before i saw you reply to it but yea i know that, maybe DH was a bad example for my original point

Community map votes brought us delights like bazillion and croissant so there's that.

so why not merge the old with the new get the prem players to pick say four maps then the map they like the least from the current map pool then let everyone vote on one of the four maps or to keep the old map? then you filter out the shit

As far as EU vs NA ruleset goes I like the idea of 2 20-minute halves. Would allow for each team to be on the clock while still maintaining the score line as well as the half time of NA.
ex:
first half: 3-1 after 15 minutes
second half: 1-1 after 20 minutes
final: 4-2 after 35 minutes

Yeah, that 2 20-minute halves idea is pretty golden. You still get your halftime, and everyone loves a buzzer beater

I also want to add that even if I think that the NA ruleset is better, I'd still use the EU ruleset for GXL. The EU ruleset is much better for LAN tournaments, because it's typically much quicker in every way possible (unless teams trade rounds rapidly without any kind of stalemates, which is unlikely).

Still, I believe that the EU ruleset is superior in just about every way. I don't really buy into switching sides at halftime anymore, because I feel like most maps have been fixed/modified to be symmetrical (or symmetrical enough).

I wouldn't be opposed to 20 minute halves, but I think it would be much healthier for competitive TF2 to have a universal ruleset. Regardless of the decision, GXL will still use the EU ruleset.

I definitely think that the NA ruleset is kind of broken in the sense that it encourages way too much stalemating combined with suiciding or waiting for something lucky to happen. The average NA round seems to take much longer time than the average EU round but not sure if there's evidence for that.

I have to agree with that as I noticed that a lot during my time in America and i got really fast way too agressive for american players.

Good to see you got some interesting insight from your time playing in Asia, tery.

Just to confirm, we use the EU ruleset in South America (except when playing in UGC, but the 6s UGC isn't taken too seriously here by the top teams hehe).

And the funnest match I've ever been was when my team was losing 6-3 6 minutes to go and we managed to get 3 quick rounds and take it to the golden cap (then we lost in 1 minute :(). The NA community has to experience that!

I believe this discussion should be re opened (and closed for good later) after what we saw in i52 as that is another expiment with the EU ruleset with close teams.
IMO 2 halves of 20 minutes is the best choice
since 30 minutes halves are too long.
and one 30 minute game is too short. and whilst alot of the above said EU ruleset didn't promote passivity, we all saw in i52 how teams would get a 2-0 / 3-0 lead and park the bus either at last or even pushing last and that creates stalemates. especially when it's the team that hold mid that has round advantages as pushing mid (or out of last ) is too hard and maps are made to make it that the team that holds mid pushes

Honestly I'm pretty sure the only reason NA uses the current ruleset it does is because asking ESEA to change it would be like pulling teeth.

Its already been discussed enough and every scene is too used to what they have and like it. Also it isn't just the time or how many halves, the teams would have to get used to a different organization in terms of scrims, maps they practice, etc.

@kalho I think those are minor issues compared to what this brings for TF2

I only see changing rulesets worthy of doing for a single unified ruleset across all scenes, and as it stands its not likely its gonna happen.

Curiously, (or not) its mostly the NA scene playing a different ruleset than the rest of the world (seriously its the metric system all over again) thus the easiest way to do it would be for the na scene to start using EU ruleset, but yeah, I don't see it happening anytime soon.

the only rational way to tell the difference between the systems is to make people familiar with one use the other against people who are of the same disposition as themselves. until someone does that enough to get a feeling for both, I feel like all the discussion is hot air. It's not like there's some gamebreaking critical flaw with either.

First to 5, round limit of 5 minutes. Once it reaches 5 minutes, round restarts, another midfight happens. I feel like stalemates happen when midfights aren't exactly explicitly won by one team.

this is fucking stupid because tf2 is much more about knowing how to dynamically play a stalemate than it is simple dm/midfights

On a side tangent, CompCtrl was made with the ruleset debate in mind, particularly with the consideration that the game doesn't natively support halves and that alone causes problems.

I personally would prefer to see two shorter halves, though twenty minutes a half feels arbitrary. Fifteen minutes seems a bit short, but testing to determine the best half length would be the best course of action.

I remember war after i52 complaining about how slow mixup played and how parking the bus when you're a round up isnt fun and nobody in europe does it

But that's not the rulesets fault

In na you stalemate until 1 team does something

In eu you stalemate and win