NA rules please

I think that the 30 mins time limit is another objective which teams need to think about their for making it much more interesting as a spectator sport .

Then again i am european

NA rules blow

i doubt we're getting an esea client rewrite to change to the EU ruleset

i like it better though, and NA players are used to it in pugs

http://www.strawpoll.me/11150485

Why do people think the NA ruleset is bad? I think halftimes are cool to see how people try to adapt to their enemy. Sure you can do that midgame, but if you are actually playing the game its very unlikely you will have a major adjustment. If you have the time to talk about it midgame you are probably waiting for your sniper to hit something for 8 minutes so the ruleset is irrelevant.

If you play the NA way, you can have games lasting an hour with 0-0 scoreline and then you have to play GC. I get that sometimes this can be good. But do we want to see Crowns vs X team with just 50mins of Crowns sitting on a 2nd waiting for the other team to make a mistake?

I don't want to play another hour and 10mins of holding snakewater last ever again :C

EU ruleset forces teams to play the game in a faster-paced environment which is much better for both players and spectators

IMO if rulesets were to be standardised it'd be from both sides finding a satisfactory middle ground. I don't see either side backing down and conforming to the other ruleset. Discussion's been had plenty of times before.

I think that rulesets will be standardised when / if valve hosts thier own lan . then every other sponsored lan will have the same ruleset as well.

Also valve usally have the lan ruleset be very similar to in-game matchmaking ruleset . And looking at pugchamp i think eu ruleset will probs be easiest to implement into the game since their isn't any half time break .

Yes but this is possibly going to be the first inter-continental Na lan so we need to make the decision again .

if the euros are gonna have the north americans play by their rules it should only work vice versa until there is a unified ruleset in the individual leagues

Well this is an exciting new thread.

http://www.teamfortress.tv/18949/ruleset-discussion

http://www.teamfortress.tv/26620/6v6-na-rules-eu-rules

http://www.teamfortress.tv/11768/rulesets

you could actually write a pretty good essay based on these threads.

I like the eu ruleset except for two things: 1) I'd like to keep halves and 2) having to play two maps per week (and have two fixtures per match) is asinine and makes their scoring system hella weird

If people think an hour is too long what about two 20 minute halves, but use mp_windifference 5 instead of winlimit 5

also a half time forces another mid fight if teams are playing slow as fuck which it seems like eu could use right now

Watching 1 five hour match is boring as fuck

thats actually a really good compromise...

eu ruleset is infinitely better

2 great things about EU rules.
Scrims and matches are the same.
You don't have to play the same fucking map all week.

How is the scoring system werid?

We already scrim with 30 mins only might as well come full circle

Whatever makes parking the bus less long.

I much prefer EU ruleset. Bo3 matches on NA ruleset can take fucking forever when you take into account time between halves and time between maps.

For the people who think it's EU ruleset which is making Crowns play slow, think back to the days of HRG and especially this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OalWDhYfdeg&ab_channel=ggglygy (granted, this was combined with the quick-fix at the time to make it even worse).

Both have pros and cons in different situations, particularly both rulesets encourage passivity in different scenarios. I personally prefer EU ruleset but maybe that's just because I'm used to it. Saam's compromise actually seems quite good (some compromises would just take the worst of both worlds, I don't think this one would), though 30 minute maps are so convenient scheduling-wise for scrims that the timing would be a slight downside.

There's nothing wrong with the ESEA ruleset gameplay wise, but it's extremely impractical to schedule cups and LANs around it. If you had the ESEA ruleset at insomnia, you would have to make every match a bo1 because it simply takes too much time to do a bo3 if there are more than 4 teams involved at LAN. Even if the full 60 minutes of the match isn't being played, you still have to schedule around it because otherwise it's very likely that everything will be delayed.

If accommodating the NA ruleset includes the ways it rotates maps, I'm not okay with that. The etf2l system is the most logical map rotation.

can we force head admins from different leagues to talk to each other somehow ?

in the NA ruleset the rounds don't matter at all until match point for one team

What would that result in? in the past few years ETF2L has reached out to other leagues for different cooperation projects. In those talks, everyone always sticks to their rulesets and map pool. It's something that defines a league and their own player base has shaped up over the years.

I get what you're saying, but SOP for a league is listen to their own players. Not to the competition.

The main problem with ESEA rules is that changing sides is completely pointless. It's simply a hangover from CS where changing sides actually matters and ESEA presumably couldn't be bothered to customise their rules for TF2 to something appropriate. Differences between the sides of maps are miniscule and no justification at all. The fact that you need a custom plugin to enforce this is the final straw ruling it out for everybody else. The opportunity to review the team's strategy is welcome, but there must be other ways of doing that.

Other than that the NA ruleset is fine, a first to x rounds ruleset is decent, but it would be nice to add something so that the winning margin must be 2 clear rounds, so that back and forth games that are very close don't end 5-4 while there's still plenty of play. 30 minute map time limit is more practical for a large lan too.