DavidTheWinbotmodeI'm curious as to how 2 20 minute half 2 map setup windifference 5 would work, matches would work out to be about 90-100 minutes long which is not really that ridiculous in my mind
That's a suggestion that's been thrown around for a while but no one's actually tested it to the best of my knowledge.
OsirisJust throwing an idea out there: How about trying the option of a three-minute freeze time(like a time out) at the start of a new round(once per map, once per team), using the EU ruleset? You could make a chat command which has to be given before the next round's freeze time stops or before the next round begins, just like pauses.
Prem players have been asking for strategic pauses to be allowed for ages now and some faked real pauses (*cough* ipz's mouse *cough*) to get them.
A 5-7 minute strategy pause would be pretty awesome
[quote=DavidTheWin][quote=botmode]I'm curious as to how 2 20 minute half 2 map setup windifference 5 would work, matches would work out to be about 90-100 minutes long which is not really that ridiculous in my mind[/quote]
That's a suggestion that's been thrown around for a while but no one's actually tested it to the best of my knowledge.
[quote=Osiris]Just throwing an idea out there: How about trying the option of a three-minute freeze time(like a time out) at the start of a new round(once per map, once per team), using the EU ruleset? You could make a chat command which has to be given before the next round's freeze time stops or before the next round begins, just like pauses.[/quote]
Prem players have been asking for strategic pauses to be allowed for ages now and some faked real pauses (*cough* ipz's mouse *cough*) to get them.[/quote]
A 5-7 minute strategy pause would be pretty awesome
BetaCHERRYCan't we have an organization like FIS or FIFA?
We have it already, it's called TFTV!
Enigma confirmed sepp blatter
[quote=Beta][quote=CHERRY]Can't we have an organization like FIS or FIFA?[/quote]
We have it already, it's called TFTV![/quote]
Enigma confirmed sepp blatter
I think it is great idea if only so we don't have to play the same map all week.
I think it is great idea if only so we don't have to play the same map all week.
id go mental if i had to play only one map for a whole week
id go mental if i had to play only one map for a whole week
Something else interesting to consider: having map veto processes to determine the map(s) played each week? Not sure how viable it would be outside of the top division, but it would be another potential venue for strategy that we don't normally see outside of playoffs.
Something else interesting to consider: having map veto processes to determine the map(s) played each week? Not sure how viable it would be outside of the top division, but it would be another potential venue for strategy that we don't normally see outside of playoffs.
I guess it is just a personal thing but i hate playing against the clock. I feel like the eu stalemates don't happen because the losing team HAS to push in with no advantage and take risks that most likely put them even further behind, since the winning team just has to defend/delay 6v6.
I guess it is just a personal thing but i hate playing against the clock. I feel like the eu stalemates don't happen because the losing team HAS to push in with no advantage and take risks that most likely put them even further behind, since the winning team just has to defend/delay 6v6.
tscSomething else interesting to consider: having map veto processes to determine the map(s) played each week? Not sure how viable it would be outside of the top division, but it would be another potential venue for strategy that we don't normally see outside of playoffs.
While I like pick/drop systems of map selection, applying it to tf2 does have the issue that it will cause the new maps to get scrimmed and played less. There isn't enough time to play three straight maps, so it's just drops until a pick, which means that, outside of playoffs, teams only need to "know" half of the maps.
[quote=tsc]Something else interesting to consider: having map veto processes to determine the map(s) played each week? Not sure how viable it would be outside of the top division, but it would be another potential venue for strategy that we don't normally see outside of playoffs.[/quote]
While I like pick/drop systems of map selection, applying it to tf2 does have the issue that it will cause the new maps to get scrimmed and played less. There isn't enough time to play three straight maps, so it's just drops until a pick, which means that, outside of playoffs, teams only need to "know" half of the maps.
shruggerI guess it is just a personal thing but i hate playing against the clock. I feel like the eu stalemates don't happen because the losing team HAS to push in with no advantage and take risks that most likely put them even further behind, since the winning team just has to defend/delay 6v6.
happens in pretty much every sport, it's risk vs reward
[quote=shrugger]I guess it is just a personal thing but i hate playing against the clock. I feel like the eu stalemates don't happen because the losing team HAS to push in with no advantage and take risks that most likely put them even further behind, since the winning team just has to defend/delay 6v6.[/quote]
happens in pretty much every sport, it's risk vs reward
shruggerI guess it is just a personal thing but i hate playing against the clock. I feel like the eu stalemates don't happen because the losing team HAS to push in with no advantage and take risks that most likely put them even further behind, since the winning team just has to defend/delay 6v6.
I've always found the mindset of wanting endless(or effectively endless) time to be able to always make the "right" play, and its resultant playstyle to be incredibly confusing from a competitive standpoint. Imagine, for example, how incredibly boring Quake duels would be if there was no time limit, or an incredibly high one.
[quote=shrugger]I guess it is just a personal thing but i hate playing against the clock. I feel like the eu stalemates don't happen because the losing team HAS to push in with no advantage and take risks that most likely put them even further behind, since the winning team just has to defend/delay 6v6.[/quote]
I've always found the mindset of wanting endless(or effectively endless) time to be able to always make the "right" play, and its resultant playstyle to be incredibly confusing from a competitive standpoint. Imagine, for example, how incredibly boring Quake duels would be if there was no time limit, or an incredibly high one.
ESEA halves make no sense, imagine if a half in CSGO ended when you got the majority of round (8 points) and then you had to play up to 22 rounds on the other half? It's completely illogical
ESEA halves make no sense, imagine if a half in CSGO ended when you got the majority of round (8 points) and then you had to play up to 22 rounds on the other half? It's completely illogical
BumFreezeESEA halves make no sense, imagine if a half in CSGO ended when you got the majority of round (8 points) and then you had to play up to 22 rounds on the other half? It's completely illogical
that makes no sense
[quote=BumFreeze]ESEA halves make no sense, imagine if a half in CSGO ended when you got the majority of round (8 points) and then you had to play up to 22 rounds on the other half? It's completely illogical[/quote]
that makes no sense
GeknaiirBumFreezeESEA halves make no sense, imagine if a half in CSGO ended when you got the majority of round (8 points) and then you had to play up to 22 rounds on the other half? It's completely illogical
that makes no sense
in TF2 the halves end when a team gets 3 rounds, which means the other half then goes on first to 5. one half can have 3 rounds then the other has 6, not really "halves" at all.
[quote=Geknaiir][quote=BumFreeze]ESEA halves make no sense, imagine if a half in CSGO ended when you got the majority of round (8 points) and then you had to play up to 22 rounds on the other half? It's completely illogical[/quote]
that makes no sense[/quote]
in TF2 the halves end when a team gets 3 rounds, which means the other half then goes on first to 5. one half can have 3 rounds then the other has 6, not really "halves" at all.
BumFreezeGeknaiirBumFreezeESEA halves make no sense, imagine if a half in CSGO ended when you got the majority of round (8 points) and then you had to play up to 22 rounds on the other half? It's completely illogical
that makes no sense
in TF2 the halves end when a team gets 3 rounds, which means the other half then goes on first to 5. one half can have 3 rounds then the other has 6, not really "halves" at all.
If one half has three rounds, the other will probably have 2-4.
If one half has four rounds, the other will probably have 3-5.
If one half has five rounds, the other will probably have 4 rounds.
In other words, it's usually even. Sure, it can theoretically be lopsided, but it almost never is.
[quote=BumFreeze][quote=Geknaiir][quote=BumFreeze]ESEA halves make no sense, imagine if a half in CSGO ended when you got the majority of round (8 points) and then you had to play up to 22 rounds on the other half? It's completely illogical[/quote]
that makes no sense[/quote]
in TF2 the halves end when a team gets 3 rounds, which means the other half then goes on first to 5. one half can have 3 rounds then the other has 6, not really "halves" at all.[/quote]
If one half has three rounds, the other will probably have 2-4.
If one half has four rounds, the other will probably have 3-5.
If one half has five rounds, the other will probably have 4 rounds.
In other words, it's usually even. Sure, it can theoretically be lopsided, but it almost never is.