yo can it just be like esea with a way smaller round reset timer
On NATF2's Future
posted in
TF2 General Discussion
Corunsonalso idk if this would sound crazy, but how about teams switch sides when a team wins a round? I feel it would a way for both teams to play red and blue side equally
This would be way too confusing both for spectators and for players as you're just swapping colors to shoot at each round I'm sure someone could space out and forget for a minute and then shoot the wrong people. The other thing is most maps are sufficiently well made that neither side has any real advantages so it doesn't matter much. Gullywash has the lamp that you can hide on that favors one team but other than that there's not much. Default badlands has the antlers in house to hide on and the vent in the sky for red side so that's just a strictly better side but it seems the new league will be using prolands instead (the antlers are a cool hiding spot that is actually hard to get up in consistently and doesn't offer much value but can reward you for knowing the map and knowing how to do the specific low jump right, don't see why it got removed in prolands but that's beside the point, the vent is mad dumb tho lmao)
Another thing that we should figure out as a community is the ruling on using wallbugs on invisible clipping in the skybox as a hiding spot. I think it's really lame and unreasonable for everyone in the league to go around the map learning every single one, not to mention that they give soldiers such a crazy advantage. There's a reason the map makers didn't add random ledges in the sky above snake choke or process rollout, cause that shit makes no sense and gives the player too big an advantage. It's not hard to do consistently as people like laz and kaptain have shown (just look at boshy he does it in speedruns and consistently hits wallbugs every single time) and doesn't add anything interesting to the game so I think they should be banned as if they're an exploit. Using a wallbug to avoid fall damage is negligible and I've only ever seen it done once but I see it like doing an edgebug to avoid fall damage, so irrelevant but props to you if you happen to do it (you can also jumpbug and avoid fall damage too but I've only ever seen it done in mge)
[quote=Corunson]also idk if this would sound crazy, but how about teams switch sides when a team wins a round? I feel it would a way for both teams to play red and blue side equally[/quote]
This would be way too confusing both for spectators and for players as you're just swapping colors to shoot at each round I'm sure someone could space out and forget for a minute and then shoot the wrong people. The other thing is most maps are sufficiently well made that neither side has any real advantages so it doesn't matter much. Gullywash has the lamp that you can hide on that favors one team but other than that there's not much. Default badlands has the antlers in house to hide on and the vent in the sky for red side so that's just a strictly better side but it seems the new league will be using prolands instead (the antlers are a cool hiding spot that is actually hard to get up in consistently and doesn't offer much value but can reward you for knowing the map and knowing how to do the specific low jump right, don't see why it got removed in prolands but that's beside the point, the vent is mad dumb tho lmao)
Another thing that we should figure out as a community is the ruling on using wallbugs on invisible clipping in the skybox as a hiding spot. I think it's really lame and unreasonable for everyone in the league to go around the map learning every single one, not to mention that they give soldiers such a crazy advantage. There's a reason the map makers didn't add random ledges in the sky above snake choke or process rollout, cause that shit makes no sense and gives the player too big an advantage. It's not hard to do consistently as people like laz and kaptain have shown (just look at boshy he does it in speedruns and consistently hits wallbugs every single time) and doesn't add anything interesting to the game so I think they should be banned as if they're an exploit. Using a wallbug to avoid fall damage is negligible and I've only ever seen it done once but I see it like doing an edgebug to avoid fall damage, so irrelevant but props to you if you happen to do it (you can also jumpbug and avoid fall damage too but I've only ever seen it done in mge)
This would be way too confusing both for spectators and for players as you're just swapping colors to shoot at each round I'm sure someone could space out and forget for a minute and then shoot the wrong people. The other thing is most maps are sufficiently well made that neither side has any real advantages so it doesn't matter much. Gullywash has the lamp that you can hide on that favors one team but other than that there's not much. Default badlands has the antlers in house to hide on and the vent in the sky for red side so that's just a strictly better side but it seems the new league will be using prolands instead (the antlers are a cool hiding spot that is actually hard to get up in consistently and doesn't offer much value but can reward you for knowing the map and knowing how to do the specific low jump right, don't see why it got removed in prolands but that's beside the point, the vent is mad dumb tho lmao)
Another thing that we should figure out as a community is the ruling on using wallbugs on invisible clipping in the skybox as a hiding spot. I think it's really lame and unreasonable for everyone in the league to go around the map learning every single one, not to mention that they give soldiers such a crazy advantage. There's a reason the map makers didn't add random ledges in the sky above snake choke or process rollout, cause that shit makes no sense and gives the player too big an advantage. It's not hard to do consistently as people like laz and kaptain have shown (just look at boshy he does it in speedruns and consistently hits wallbugs every single time) and doesn't add anything interesting to the game so I think they should be banned as if they're an exploit. Using a wallbug to avoid fall damage is negligible and I've only ever seen it done once but I see it like doing an edgebug to avoid fall damage, so irrelevant but props to you if you happen to do it (you can also jumpbug and avoid fall damage too but I've only ever seen it done in mge)
each team getting a tac pause solves all the issues people have w/out deviating wildly from the rest of the ruleset (except for on viaduct i guess, but people will always hate tiny things about that map to make up for how bad they are at it, myself included)
if the option is between halftime & no halftime with no tac pause, i would hesitantly want halftime
if the option is between halftime & tac pause, i would pick tac pause easily
each team getting a tac pause solves all the issues people have w/out deviating wildly from the rest of the ruleset (except for on viaduct i guess, but people will always hate tiny things about that map to make up for how bad they are at it, myself included)
if the option is between halftime & no halftime with no tac pause, i would hesitantly want halftime
if the option is between halftime & tac pause, i would pick tac pause easily
if the option is between halftime & no halftime with no tac pause, i would hesitantly want halftime
if the option is between halftime & tac pause, i would pick tac pause easily
bearodactyl'oh lemme go to the bathroom' or get a drink or whatever that u will do with normal pauses lol
ur team mate seems to disagree
[quote=bearodactyl]'oh lemme go to the bathroom' or get a drink or whatever that u will do with normal pauses lol[/quote]
ur team mate seems to disagree
[img]https://i.gyazo.com/028ca6e695818d2537e5c2d427d09a57.jpg[/img]
ur team mate seems to disagree
[img]https://i.gyazo.com/028ca6e695818d2537e5c2d427d09a57.jpg[/img]
Yea exactly that's why I said what I did l lol, having a pause able to be effectively as long as you want let's you go to the bathroom or do whatever and can be an easy way to kill momentum if a team is winning and everyone's in the zone and then can't play for 5+ mins and get less focused/hyped up
Yea exactly that's why I said what I did l lol, having a pause able to be effectively as long as you want let's you go to the bathroom or do whatever and can be an easy way to kill momentum if a team is winning and everyone's in the zone and then can't play for 5+ mins and get less focused/hyped up
As someone that played both rulesets - countless ESEA seasons, half a year in AsiaFortress / a couple LANs - I feel the EU / AU / global ruleset provides more overall.
Yes, halftime is cool to reset things / talk over but that can be "replaced" with a tactical pause option. Give each team one per match (with a max of like three minutes or something). I also think it rewards the teams that can adjust on the fly instead of needing to talk about it but whatever. Halftime drags out lengths of the standard match, too. LAN is another story. For time / logistical reasons we already use the EU ruleset. I know in NA we don't have (huge) yearly LANs (rip Rewind) but the equivalent is basically playoffs where things really matter. There would be no fears of a potential <insert large number> hour Grand Final which are headaches for players and casters alike.
Also something tiny worth noting is that halftime in NA ruleset involves switching colors, something that changes nothing because all our maps are symmetrical...except Viaduct... Shoutouts to old Granary when red Medic had to killbind during each rollout because of shitty spawns.
People talk about the potential for slower games and parking the bus, but that shit can and does happen in NA already. Some teams already scrim as if it's LAN GRAND FINALS and don't do things for eons anyway. Rounds mean more when there's a win difference of five / 30 minutes. A 4-3 lead in NA is way different than a 4-3 lead in EU. The whole round reset timer issue makes more of an impact when there are only 30 minutes total but how much does that actually change? It would be amazing if there was a way to run the numbers and see how many low scoring matches happen in both ESEA and ETF2L across the divs - even for the small sample size of a season - to compare. As far as I know there's no data on that...for obvious reasons (way too much work).
Some have brought up 20 minute halves with halftime before, which would be an interesting take. Perhaps an exhibition cup / tourney of some kind could be held to test it out?
Sorry for bad thoughts / English / formatting, yadda yadda been up since 5:30AM.
As someone that played both rulesets - countless ESEA seasons, half a year in AsiaFortress / a couple LANs - I feel the EU / AU / global ruleset provides more overall.
Yes, halftime is cool to reset things / talk over but that can be "replaced" with a tactical pause option. Give each team one per match (with a max of like three minutes or something). I also think it rewards the teams that can adjust on the fly instead of needing to talk about it but whatever. Halftime drags out lengths of the standard match, too. LAN is another story. For time / logistical reasons we already use the EU ruleset. I know in NA we don't have (huge) yearly LANs (rip Rewind) but the equivalent is basically playoffs where things really matter. There would be no fears of a potential <insert large number> hour Grand Final which are headaches for players and casters alike.
Also something tiny worth noting is that halftime in NA ruleset involves switching colors, something that changes nothing because all our maps are symmetrical...except Viaduct... Shoutouts to old Granary when red Medic had to killbind during each rollout because of shitty spawns.
People talk about the potential for slower games and parking the bus, but that shit can and does happen in NA already. Some teams already [i]scrim[/i] as if it's LAN GRAND FINALS and don't do things for eons anyway. Rounds mean more when there's a win difference of five / 30 minutes. A 4-3 lead in NA is way different than a 4-3 lead in EU. The whole round reset timer issue makes more of an impact when there are only 30 minutes total but how much does that actually change? It would be amazing if there was a way to run the numbers and see how many low scoring matches happen in both ESEA and ETF2L across the divs - even for the small sample size of a season - to compare. As far as I know there's no data on that...for obvious reasons (way too much work).
Some have brought up 20 minute halves with halftime before, which would be an interesting take. Perhaps an exhibition cup / tourney of some kind could be held to test it out?
Sorry for bad thoughts / English / formatting, yadda yadda been up since 5:30AM.
Yes, halftime is cool to reset things / talk over but that can be "replaced" with a tactical pause option. Give each team one per match (with a max of like three minutes or something). I also think it rewards the teams that can adjust on the fly instead of needing to talk about it but whatever. Halftime drags out lengths of the standard match, too. LAN is another story. For time / logistical reasons we already use the EU ruleset. I know in NA we don't have (huge) yearly LANs (rip Rewind) but the equivalent is basically playoffs where things really matter. There would be no fears of a potential <insert large number> hour Grand Final which are headaches for players and casters alike.
Also something tiny worth noting is that halftime in NA ruleset involves switching colors, something that changes nothing because all our maps are symmetrical...except Viaduct... Shoutouts to old Granary when red Medic had to killbind during each rollout because of shitty spawns.
People talk about the potential for slower games and parking the bus, but that shit can and does happen in NA already. Some teams already [i]scrim[/i] as if it's LAN GRAND FINALS and don't do things for eons anyway. Rounds mean more when there's a win difference of five / 30 minutes. A 4-3 lead in NA is way different than a 4-3 lead in EU. The whole round reset timer issue makes more of an impact when there are only 30 minutes total but how much does that actually change? It would be amazing if there was a way to run the numbers and see how many low scoring matches happen in both ESEA and ETF2L across the divs - even for the small sample size of a season - to compare. As far as I know there's no data on that...for obvious reasons (way too much work).
Some have brought up 20 minute halves with halftime before, which would be an interesting take. Perhaps an exhibition cup / tourney of some kind could be held to test it out?
Sorry for bad thoughts / English / formatting, yadda yadda been up since 5:30AM.
(I am not speaking officially for the "New Beginnings" team or for ChampGG, though my opinions are influenced as a part of both.)
glassyou say the main allure of rgl is money, but right now the main allure of rgl is that it exists.
it is a functional (or dysfunctional, we'll see) league that has servers, a website, teams signed up etc. sigafoo has a spotty track record, but we know the season will actually happen, teams will compete and prizes will get paid out.
you guys can tear it down all you want, and a lot of the criticisms are valid, but tearing it down won't get tf2 matches played. i think it's important for the esea replacement to happen quickly so the small core playerbase doesn't melt away in the interim. while everyone else is still talking, sigafoo has a league set up. that's the allure, for better or worse.
Existing right now is certainly an advantage if the new league was needed today, but I don't think it's as convincing when you consider that a new league needs to be ready at the most in a bit over a month, and that's only if it starts literally the week after ESEA concludes, like RGL is scheduled to do right now. (Seriously, what's up with that?)
As a reference point, PugChamp was developed from scratch and released within a couple of months to replace tf2pug.me, and in this case a league doesn't even have to start from scratch given that platforms to run leagues already exist (most notably Citadel, which ozfortress uses).
bearodactylNoo don't do away with the halves rewind ruleset was good for lan but the half time is super good to allow teams to play strategically and comfortably while still having the possibility to come back and change their approach in the second half. With no halftime the first point that is won is easily the most important and it let's teams easily park the bus and force the other team to do crazy stuff out of desperation with the little time left.
With the half time the team that wins does so because they have actually cracked the other teams defenses and shown themselves to be the better team rather than simply getting lucky on one mid and wiping them and converting it to a round just to park the bus 1-0 with a sniper for the next 20 minutes.
Maybe I'm in the minority but the amount of comebacks I've seen enabled by the half time ruleset completely justifies the downsides (having to play a little longer I guess). Hopefully there's something in the survey though to gauge public opinion on it versus just going with what botmode suggested he wanted and sigafoo said he agreed he liked.
I'm a bit crazy, but my ideal 5CP ruleset has always been two 15-minute halves with no round timer. The importance of time management is preserved (whereas that hasn't really been the case as much in ESEA), but the half timers are short enough to the point that at least one team doesn't have the incentive to sit around and let the clock drain.
Beyond that, other tweaks I think would be viable are:
- pre-round strategy periods (15-30 seconds), not counted off the match timer
- post-round humiliation time not counted off the match timer
- one tactical pause available per team each match, can be taken during pre-round
- concede option available after a certain point in the match
The first three were actually implemented by me for at least one international LAN, so they've definitely seen real action before. The concede option is relatively simple to implement and test and would be an effective replacement to using win limit or difference to close out a match automatically.
bearodactylIn the survey it asks which playoff ban order you prefer but these all seem a bit silly, I think it should just be one ban each, pick pick, then alternate bans down to the last map so both teams get a say in it. I think that's the most fair way of doing it and only doing 5 total bans and then one team picking at the end seems like it just gives that team too much control over the deciding map.
Maybe the second seed should have more control over the third in playoffs though to reward them a little, as is the seeds really don't matter at all because you just play the other one with equal footing as far as I know (you do get to choose if you want to be team A or B if you're the higher seed I think but they don't make much difference)
As far as map pools and ban processes go, there are some standards that seem to work pretty well in other games (e.g. CS:GO) and would probably make sense in TF2 as well.
In particular:
- 7-map pool
- single game ban process: A bans 2x, B bans 3x, A picks from remaining 2 maps
- Bo3 ban process: A bans, B bans, A picks, B picks, B bans, A picks from remaining 2 maps
- when teams are seeded: higher seed picks between being A or B
Which maps are in the pool is up to the community, but the map pool should either be entirely 5CP or have more than one KotH map, as having only Product as the token KotH map doesn't make that much sense.
(I am not speaking officially for the "New Beginnings" team or for ChampGG, though my opinions are influenced as a part of both.)
[quote=glass]you say the main allure of rgl is money, but right now the main allure of rgl is that it exists.
it is a functional (or dysfunctional, we'll see) league that has servers, a website, teams signed up etc. sigafoo has a spotty track record, but we know the season will actually happen, teams will compete and prizes will get paid out.
you guys can tear it down all you want, and a lot of the criticisms are valid, but tearing it down won't get tf2 matches played. i think it's important for the esea replacement to happen quickly so the small core playerbase doesn't melt away in the interim. while everyone else is still talking, sigafoo has a league set up. that's the allure, for better or worse.[/quote]
Existing right now is certainly an advantage if the new league was needed today, but I don't think it's as convincing when you consider that a new league needs to be ready at the most in a bit over a month, and that's only if it starts literally the week after ESEA concludes, like RGL is scheduled to do right now. (Seriously, what's up with that?)
As a reference point, PugChamp was developed from scratch and released within a couple of months to replace tf2pug.me, and in this case a league doesn't even have to start from scratch given that platforms to run leagues already exist (most notably Citadel, which ozfortress uses).
[quote=bearodactyl]Noo don't do away with the halves rewind ruleset was good for lan but the half time is super good to allow teams to play strategically and comfortably while still having the possibility to come back and change their approach in the second half. With no halftime the first point that is won is easily the most important and it let's teams easily park the bus and force the other team to do crazy stuff out of desperation with the little time left.
With the half time the team that wins does so because they have actually cracked the other teams defenses and shown themselves to be the better team rather than simply getting lucky on one mid and wiping them and converting it to a round just to park the bus 1-0 with a sniper for the next 20 minutes.
Maybe I'm in the minority but the amount of comebacks I've seen enabled by the half time ruleset completely justifies the downsides (having to play a little longer I guess). Hopefully there's something in the survey though to gauge public opinion on it versus just going with what botmode suggested he wanted and sigafoo said he agreed he liked.[/quote]
I'm a bit crazy, but my ideal 5CP ruleset has always been two 15-minute halves with no round timer. The importance of time management is preserved (whereas that hasn't really been the case as much in ESEA), but the half timers are short enough to the point that at least one team doesn't have the incentive to sit around and let the clock drain.
Beyond that, other tweaks I think would be viable are:
[list]
[*] pre-round strategy periods (15-30 seconds), not counted off the match timer
[*] post-round humiliation time not counted off the match timer
[*] one tactical pause available per team each match, can be taken during pre-round
[*] concede option available after a certain point in the match
[/list]
The first three were actually implemented by me for at least one international LAN, so they've definitely seen real action before. The concede option is relatively simple to implement and test and would be an effective replacement to using win limit or difference to close out a match automatically.
[quote=bearodactyl]In the survey it asks which playoff ban order you prefer but these all seem a bit silly, I think it should just be one ban each, pick pick, then alternate bans down to the last map so both teams get a say in it. I think that's the most fair way of doing it and only doing 5 total bans and then one team picking at the end seems like it just gives that team too much control over the deciding map.
Maybe the second seed should have more control over the third in playoffs though to reward them a little, as is the seeds really don't matter at all because you just play the other one with equal footing as far as I know (you do get to choose if you want to be team A or B if you're the higher seed I think but they don't make much difference)[/quote]
As far as map pools and ban processes go, there are some standards that seem to work pretty well in other games (e.g. CS:GO) and would probably make sense in TF2 as well.
In particular:
[list]
[*] 7-map pool
[*] single game ban process: A bans 2x, B bans 3x, A picks from remaining 2 maps
[*] Bo3 ban process: A bans, B bans, A picks, B picks, B bans, A picks from remaining 2 maps
[*] when teams are seeded: higher seed picks between being A or B
[/list]
Which maps are in the pool is up to the community, but the map pool should either be entirely 5CP or have more than one KotH map, as having only Product as the token KotH map doesn't make that much sense.
[quote=glass]you say the main allure of rgl is money, but right now the main allure of rgl is that it exists.
it is a functional (or dysfunctional, we'll see) league that has servers, a website, teams signed up etc. sigafoo has a spotty track record, but we know the season will actually happen, teams will compete and prizes will get paid out.
you guys can tear it down all you want, and a lot of the criticisms are valid, but tearing it down won't get tf2 matches played. i think it's important for the esea replacement to happen quickly so the small core playerbase doesn't melt away in the interim. while everyone else is still talking, sigafoo has a league set up. that's the allure, for better or worse.[/quote]
Existing right now is certainly an advantage if the new league was needed today, but I don't think it's as convincing when you consider that a new league needs to be ready at the most in a bit over a month, and that's only if it starts literally the week after ESEA concludes, like RGL is scheduled to do right now. (Seriously, what's up with that?)
As a reference point, PugChamp was developed from scratch and released within a couple of months to replace tf2pug.me, and in this case a league doesn't even have to start from scratch given that platforms to run leagues already exist (most notably Citadel, which ozfortress uses).
[quote=bearodactyl]Noo don't do away with the halves rewind ruleset was good for lan but the half time is super good to allow teams to play strategically and comfortably while still having the possibility to come back and change their approach in the second half. With no halftime the first point that is won is easily the most important and it let's teams easily park the bus and force the other team to do crazy stuff out of desperation with the little time left.
With the half time the team that wins does so because they have actually cracked the other teams defenses and shown themselves to be the better team rather than simply getting lucky on one mid and wiping them and converting it to a round just to park the bus 1-0 with a sniper for the next 20 minutes.
Maybe I'm in the minority but the amount of comebacks I've seen enabled by the half time ruleset completely justifies the downsides (having to play a little longer I guess). Hopefully there's something in the survey though to gauge public opinion on it versus just going with what botmode suggested he wanted and sigafoo said he agreed he liked.[/quote]
I'm a bit crazy, but my ideal 5CP ruleset has always been two 15-minute halves with no round timer. The importance of time management is preserved (whereas that hasn't really been the case as much in ESEA), but the half timers are short enough to the point that at least one team doesn't have the incentive to sit around and let the clock drain.
Beyond that, other tweaks I think would be viable are:
[list]
[*] pre-round strategy periods (15-30 seconds), not counted off the match timer
[*] post-round humiliation time not counted off the match timer
[*] one tactical pause available per team each match, can be taken during pre-round
[*] concede option available after a certain point in the match
[/list]
The first three were actually implemented by me for at least one international LAN, so they've definitely seen real action before. The concede option is relatively simple to implement and test and would be an effective replacement to using win limit or difference to close out a match automatically.
[quote=bearodactyl]In the survey it asks which playoff ban order you prefer but these all seem a bit silly, I think it should just be one ban each, pick pick, then alternate bans down to the last map so both teams get a say in it. I think that's the most fair way of doing it and only doing 5 total bans and then one team picking at the end seems like it just gives that team too much control over the deciding map.
Maybe the second seed should have more control over the third in playoffs though to reward them a little, as is the seeds really don't matter at all because you just play the other one with equal footing as far as I know (you do get to choose if you want to be team A or B if you're the higher seed I think but they don't make much difference)[/quote]
As far as map pools and ban processes go, there are some standards that seem to work pretty well in other games (e.g. CS:GO) and would probably make sense in TF2 as well.
In particular:
[list]
[*] 7-map pool
[*] single game ban process: A bans 2x, B bans 3x, A picks from remaining 2 maps
[*] Bo3 ban process: A bans, B bans, A picks, B picks, B bans, A picks from remaining 2 maps
[*] when teams are seeded: higher seed picks between being A or B
[/list]
Which maps are in the pool is up to the community, but the map pool should either be entirely 5CP or have more than one KotH map, as having only Product as the token KotH map doesn't make that much sense.
I think the biggest thing to note is how easy it is to "gay" the other team when there's like 10-20 minutes left and you have some rounds up. people in NA don't really do it THAT often, but sticking a level 3 and a heavy on the enemies second (or even mid on some maps) is just super SUPER lame. most people play bcus the game is fun for them, no one is gonna want to play a barely breathing game when they're losing matches to shit like that bcus regular season matches are just one 30 minute go with a pause at some point (maybe).
ig the point I'm trying to make is tf2 is naturally stalematey (ESPECIALLY at lower levels like open/lower IM where the most of the player base is) and having 2 thirty minute halves allows a match to really flourish
another note, i've talk to A Few euros abt this and some strongly agree while others think I got dumb brain so idk
a cool compromise might be like 2 twenty minute halves or something? I think halftime is SUPER important in 6's and seeing it go would probably cause a lot of discourse in NA (much like map bans every match in a small player base where its hard to find good scrims!!!!!! but thats a different talk!!!!!!!!!!) ((please bring back weekly maps)) (((im seriously begging)))
I think the biggest thing to note is how easy it is to "gay" the other team when there's like 10-20 minutes left and you have some rounds up. people in NA don't really do it THAT often, but sticking a level 3 and a heavy on the enemies second (or even mid on some maps) is just super SUPER lame. most people play bcus the game is fun for them, no one is gonna want to play a barely breathing game when they're losing matches to shit like that bcus regular season matches are just one 30 minute go with a pause at some point (maybe).
ig the point I'm trying to make is tf2 is naturally stalematey (ESPECIALLY at lower levels like open/lower IM where the most of the player base is) and having 2 thirty minute halves allows a match to really flourish
another note, i've talk to A Few euros abt this and some strongly agree while others think I got dumb brain so idk
a cool compromise might be like 2 twenty minute halves or something? I think halftime is SUPER important in 6's and seeing it go would probably cause a lot of discourse in NA (much like map bans every match in a small player base where its hard to find good scrims!!!!!! but thats a different talk!!!!!!!!!!) ((please bring back weekly maps)) (((im seriously begging)))
ig the point I'm trying to make is tf2 is naturally stalematey (ESPECIALLY at lower levels like open/lower IM where the most of the player base is) and having 2 thirty minute halves allows a match to really flourish
another note, i've talk to A Few euros abt this and some strongly agree while others think I got dumb brain so idk
a cool compromise might be like 2 twenty minute halves or something? I think halftime is SUPER important in 6's and seeing it go would probably cause a lot of discourse in NA (much like map bans every match in a small player base where its hard to find good scrims!!!!!! but thats a different talk!!!!!!!!!!) ((please bring back weekly maps)) (((im seriously begging)))
VirgilCostasvery weird post not sure if good but at the very least interesting. writing was hard to follow maybe use bullet points when listing things next time.
idk i thought it was well written, structured, and articulated. Paragraphs flowed pretty naturally with progressing points.
i did not think it was well written, that is my opinion.
[quote=Virgil][quote=Costas]very weird post not sure if good but at the very least interesting. writing was hard to follow maybe use bullet points when listing things next time.[/quote]
idk i thought it was well written, structured, and articulated. Paragraphs flowed pretty naturally with progressing points.[/quote]
i did not think it was well written, that is my opinion.
idk i thought it was well written, structured, and articulated. Paragraphs flowed pretty naturally with progressing points.[/quote]
i did not think it was well written, that is my opinion.
CostasVirgili did not think it was well written, that is my opinion.Costasvery weird post not sure if good but at the very least interesting. writing was hard to follow maybe use bullet points when listing things next time.
idk i thought it was well written, structured, and articulated. Paragraphs flowed pretty naturally with progressing points.
ur opinion is wrong
[quote=Costas][quote=Virgil][quote=Costas]very weird post not sure if good but at the very least interesting. writing was hard to follow maybe use bullet points when listing things next time.[/quote]
idk i thought it was well written, structured, and articulated. Paragraphs flowed pretty naturally with progressing points.[/quote]
i did not think it was well written, that is my opinion.[/quote]
ur opinion is wrong
idk i thought it was well written, structured, and articulated. Paragraphs flowed pretty naturally with progressing points.[/quote]
i did not think it was well written, that is my opinion.[/quote]
ur opinion is wrong
gbjCostasVirgili did not think it was well written, that is my opinion.Costasvery weird post not sure if good but at the very least interesting. writing was hard to follow maybe use bullet points when listing things next time.
idk i thought it was well written, structured, and articulated. Paragraphs flowed pretty naturally with progressing points.
ur opinion is wrong
that is your opinion
[quote=gbj][quote=Costas][quote=Virgil][quote=Costas]very weird post not sure if good but at the very least interesting. writing was hard to follow maybe use bullet points when listing things next time.[/quote]
idk i thought it was well written, structured, and articulated. Paragraphs flowed pretty naturally with progressing points.[/quote]
i did not think it was well written, that is my opinion.[/quote]
ur opinion is wrong[/quote]
that is your opinion
idk i thought it was well written, structured, and articulated. Paragraphs flowed pretty naturally with progressing points.[/quote]
i did not think it was well written, that is my opinion.[/quote]
ur opinion is wrong[/quote]
that is your opinion
Daffodil-I feel like the way NA plays maps currently (2 halves, current esea system, etc etc) is significantly better than how things are ran in EU. I don't have any objective data to back this up (and I could be completely incorrect so feel free to call me out) but my impression of the EU ruleset is that it encourages teams to stalemate. When a map only lasts 30 minutes, and the score you get inside of the map is irrelevant to the points given it directly encourages teams to take the first 15-20 or so minutes to go up 1 or 2 rounds and then grind the game to a complete halt because its easy to time out the other team. In NA, doing this in the first half is futile for obvious reasons. Trying to time out the other team in the 2nd half can happen, but it is a lot harder of an endeavor to hold a team from getting momentum for 30 minutes unless you were just that much better in the first place.
I don't get around the EU scene very often but I get told it has a larger problem with stalematey and grindy games compared to NA. When the only real disadvantage to the NA ruleset is that playoff matches can extend out to an awkward length, an easy enough solution is to break apart the bracket resets for grand finals into separate days. Outside of that, a normal bo3 playoffs match under NA rules shouldn't really be taking longer than 4 hours max. It *could* go longer with golden caps but thats applicable to both methods so its not super relevant. 4 hours is still long but its not absurdly unreasonable, especially if you consider the average length is really more like 2 or 3.
bro u gotta stop posting
[quote=Daffodil-]I feel like the way NA plays maps currently (2 halves, current esea system, etc etc) is significantly better than how things are ran in EU. I don't have any objective data to back this up (and I could be completely incorrect so feel free to call me out) but my impression of the EU ruleset is that it encourages teams to stalemate. When a map only lasts 30 minutes, and the score you get inside of the map is irrelevant to the points given it directly encourages teams to take the first 15-20 or so minutes to go up 1 or 2 rounds and then grind the game to a complete halt because its easy to time out the other team. In NA, doing this in the first half is futile for obvious reasons. Trying to time out the other team in the 2nd half can happen, but it is a lot harder of an endeavor to hold a team from getting momentum for 30 minutes unless you were just that much better in the first place.
I don't get around the EU scene very often but I get told it has a larger problem with stalematey and grindy games compared to NA. When the only real disadvantage to the NA ruleset is that playoff matches can extend out to an awkward length, an easy enough solution is to break apart the bracket resets for grand finals into separate days. Outside of that, a normal bo3 playoffs match under NA rules shouldn't really be taking longer than 4 hours max. It *could* go longer with golden caps but thats applicable to both methods so its not super relevant. 4 hours is still long but its not absurdly unreasonable, especially if you consider the average length is really more like 2 or 3.[/quote]
bro u gotta stop posting
I don't get around the EU scene very often but I get told it has a larger problem with stalematey and grindy games compared to NA. When the only real disadvantage to the NA ruleset is that playoff matches can extend out to an awkward length, an easy enough solution is to break apart the bracket resets for grand finals into separate days. Outside of that, a normal bo3 playoffs match under NA rules shouldn't really be taking longer than 4 hours max. It *could* go longer with golden caps but thats applicable to both methods so its not super relevant. 4 hours is still long but its not absurdly unreasonable, especially if you consider the average length is really more like 2 or 3.[/quote]
bro u gotta stop posting
tojopeople in NA don't really do it THAT often, but sticking a level 3 and a heavy on the enemies second (or even mid on some maps) is just super SUPER lame.
How often do you think this happens, because I think it's less than 5% of all ESEA matches. What about in ETF2L? Again we don't have the data but I can't see it being too high - otherwise there'd be some sort of outcry over it (at least I imagine). Whether a ruleset change would create more "offensive" Engineer / Heavy play is up for debate but we could just look at EU for reference.
tojoig the point I'm trying to make is tf2 is naturally stalematey (ESPECIALLY at lower levels like open/lower IM where the most of the player base is) and having 2 thirty minute halves allows a match to really flourish
Does it? Instead of a 30 minute 2-1 score now you have like a 45 minute or one hour 3-2 score. Sure there are cases where a 1-0 half turns into a spectacular 5-3 / 5-4 second half, but then on the flip side there are 5-3 / 5-4 matches that wrap up in roughly 30 minutes.
tojoI think halftime is SUPER important in 6's and seeing it go would probably cause a lot of discourse in NA
We already scrim without halftime. Yeah it's a scrim and most teams don't play scrims as seriously as a match blah blah blah...but if we adopted to the EU ruleset people would adjust with it in time. Perhaps even make scrims more productive, I dunno. I just think now that we're in a position to make serious change from what we had in ESEA it should be heavily considered. Unification with EU / AU / Asia would be big (by the way please use global whitelist thanks).
[quote=tojo]people in NA don't really do it THAT often, but sticking a level 3 and a heavy on the enemies second (or even mid on some maps) is just super SUPER lame.[/quote]
How often do you think this happens, because I think it's less than 5% of all ESEA matches. What about in ETF2L? Again we don't have the data but I can't see it being too high - otherwise there'd be some sort of outcry over it (at least I imagine). Whether a ruleset change would create more "offensive" Engineer / Heavy play is up for debate but we could just look at EU for reference.
[quote=tojo]ig the point I'm trying to make is tf2 is naturally stalematey (ESPECIALLY at lower levels like open/lower IM where the most of the player base is) and having 2 thirty minute halves allows a match to really flourish [/quote]
Does it? Instead of a 30 minute 2-1 score now you have like a 45 minute or one hour 3-2 score. Sure there are cases where a 1-0 half turns into a spectacular 5-3 / 5-4 second half, but then on the flip side there are 5-3 / 5-4 matches that wrap up in roughly 30 minutes.
[quote=tojo]I think halftime is SUPER important in 6's and seeing it go would probably cause a lot of discourse in NA[/quote]
We already scrim without halftime. Yeah it's a scrim and most teams don't play scrims as seriously as a match blah blah blah...but if we adopted to the EU ruleset people would adjust with it in time. Perhaps even make scrims more productive, I dunno. I just think now that we're in a position to make serious change from what we had in ESEA it should be heavily considered. Unification with EU / AU / Asia would be big (by the way please use global whitelist thanks).
How often do you think this happens, because I think it's less than 5% of all ESEA matches. What about in ETF2L? Again we don't have the data but I can't see it being too high - otherwise there'd be some sort of outcry over it (at least I imagine). Whether a ruleset change would create more "offensive" Engineer / Heavy play is up for debate but we could just look at EU for reference.
[quote=tojo]ig the point I'm trying to make is tf2 is naturally stalematey (ESPECIALLY at lower levels like open/lower IM where the most of the player base is) and having 2 thirty minute halves allows a match to really flourish [/quote]
Does it? Instead of a 30 minute 2-1 score now you have like a 45 minute or one hour 3-2 score. Sure there are cases where a 1-0 half turns into a spectacular 5-3 / 5-4 second half, but then on the flip side there are 5-3 / 5-4 matches that wrap up in roughly 30 minutes.
[quote=tojo]I think halftime is SUPER important in 6's and seeing it go would probably cause a lot of discourse in NA[/quote]
We already scrim without halftime. Yeah it's a scrim and most teams don't play scrims as seriously as a match blah blah blah...but if we adopted to the EU ruleset people would adjust with it in time. Perhaps even make scrims more productive, I dunno. I just think now that we're in a position to make serious change from what we had in ESEA it should be heavily considered. Unification with EU / AU / Asia would be big (by the way please use global whitelist thanks).
bearodactylI think if they had like 90 second tac pauses you could do in between rounds that would be a really good feature
I remember this happening at Insomnia 61 where the rounds ended, and there was like maybe 10-15 seconds before the teams respawned, then another 10-15 seconds before the round started. The timing maybe could be put here or there, or adjusted (maybe having forced 20-30 second pauses between rounds would break momentum), but these downtimes enable at least a quick summary to talk about things. I'd like to see this introduced in some fashion to regular matches
[quote=bearodactyl]I think if they had like 90 second tac pauses you could do in between rounds that would be a really good feature[/quote]
I remember this happening at Insomnia 61 where the rounds ended, and there was like maybe 10-15 seconds before the teams respawned, then another 10-15 seconds before the round started. The timing maybe could be put here or there, or adjusted (maybe having forced 20-30 second pauses between rounds would break momentum), but these downtimes enable at least a quick summary to talk about things. I'd like to see this introduced in some fashion to regular matches
I remember this happening at Insomnia 61 where the rounds ended, and there was like maybe 10-15 seconds before the teams respawned, then another 10-15 seconds before the round started. The timing maybe could be put here or there, or adjusted (maybe having forced 20-30 second pauses between rounds would break momentum), but these downtimes enable at least a quick summary to talk about things. I'd like to see this introduced in some fashion to regular matches
rowrowI remember this happening at Insomnia 61 where the rounds ended, and there was like maybe 10-15 seconds before the teams respawned, then another 10-15 seconds before the round started. The timing maybe could be put here or there, or adjusted (maybe having forced 20-30 second pauses between rounds would break momentum), but these downtimes enable at least a quick summary to talk about things. I'd like to see this introduced in some fashion to regular matches
A while back I played on a server/config with this (I think it was a little shorter) and liked it a lot. I'm not sure if it's a config thing or a plugin thing though, which would be a deciding factor in any league's decision to do it.
I've played the last two seasons in ozf, which uses the ETF2L system of two maps, and like it a bit better than ESEA personally. I feel like there's a bit more pressure in the game, which is good. People talk a bunch about how half time can be used to restrategize and make a comeback in the second half, but this actually happens even more so with the ETF2L system IMO. Mentality plays a large part in comebacks, and being able to say "sure, they won the first half, but let's reset, adjust, and beat them on a fresh map" is a lot more doable.
I also think the 2-map system may lend itself to upsets more - Whether or not it's a good thing overall is up for discussion. I personally like it, as it keeps the better teams on their toes and gives lesser teams a better chance of picking up a win by playing at their best.
[quote=rowrow]I remember this happening at Insomnia 61 where the rounds ended, and there was like maybe 10-15 seconds before the teams respawned, then another 10-15 seconds before the round started. The timing maybe could be put here or there, or adjusted (maybe having forced 20-30 second pauses between rounds would break momentum), but these downtimes enable at least a quick summary to talk about things. I'd like to see this introduced in some fashion to regular matches[/quote]
A while back I played on a server/config with this (I think it was a little shorter) and liked it a lot. I'm not sure if it's a config thing or a plugin thing though, which would be a deciding factor in any league's decision to do it.
I've played the last two seasons in ozf, which uses the ETF2L system of two maps, and like it a bit better than ESEA personally. I feel like there's a bit more pressure in the game, which is good. People talk a bunch about how half time can be used to restrategize and make a comeback in the second half, but this actually happens even more so with the ETF2L system IMO. Mentality plays a large part in comebacks, and being able to say "sure, they won the first half, but let's reset, adjust, and beat them on a fresh map" is a lot more doable.
I also think the 2-map system may lend itself to upsets more - Whether or not it's a good thing overall is up for discussion. I personally like it, as it keeps the better teams on their toes and gives lesser teams a better chance of picking up a win by playing at their best.
A while back I played on a server/config with this (I think it was a little shorter) and liked it a lot. I'm not sure if it's a config thing or a plugin thing though, which would be a deciding factor in any league's decision to do it.
I've played the last two seasons in ozf, which uses the ETF2L system of two maps, and like it a bit better than ESEA personally. I feel like there's a bit more pressure in the game, which is good. People talk a bunch about how half time can be used to restrategize and make a comeback in the second half, but this actually happens even more so with the ETF2L system IMO. Mentality plays a large part in comebacks, and being able to say "sure, they won the first half, but let's reset, adjust, and beat them on a fresh map" is a lot more doable.
I also think the 2-map system may lend itself to upsets more - Whether or not it's a good thing overall is up for discussion. I personally like it, as it keeps the better teams on their toes and gives lesser teams a better chance of picking up a win by playing at their best.
I do like this a lot. Glad to see you took time to write this out my dude.
I do like this a lot. Glad to see you took time to write this out my dude.
taking this comment from the RGL thread, if you guys actually care about this stuff then be sure to take the survey
blog post about changes: http://sixes.rgl.gg/Public/Articles/Default.aspx?a=1250
league survey: http://sixes.rgl.gg/Players/My/Survey.aspx?s=5
taking this comment from the RGL thread, if you guys actually care about this stuff then be sure to take the survey
blog post about changes: http://sixes.rgl.gg/Public/Articles/Default.aspx?a=1250
league survey: http://sixes.rgl.gg/Players/My/Survey.aspx?s=5
blog post about changes: http://sixes.rgl.gg/Public/Articles/Default.aspx?a=1250
league survey: http://sixes.rgl.gg/Players/My/Survey.aspx?s=5
DubThinkrowrowI remember this happening at Insomnia 61 where the rounds ended, and there was like maybe 10-15 seconds before the teams respawned, then another 10-15 seconds before the round started.A while back I played on a server/config with this (I think it was a little shorter) and liked it a lot. I'm not sure if it's a config thing or a plugin thing though, which would be a deciding factor in any league's decision to do it.
as far as i know through my futzing about with configs
mp_bonusroundtime 15 (15 is the max) would probably be the most you could do, just config-wise.
i thought that tf_competitive_preround_duration would be useful here but it only works in valve competitive, apparently
[quote=DubThink][quote=rowrow]I remember this happening at Insomnia 61 where the rounds ended, and there was like maybe 10-15 seconds before the teams respawned, then another 10-15 seconds before the round started.[/quote]
A while back I played on a server/config with this (I think it was a little shorter) and liked it a lot. I'm not sure if it's a config thing or a plugin thing though, which would be a deciding factor in any league's decision to do it.
[/quote]
as far as i know through my futzing about with configs
mp_bonusroundtime 15 (15 is the max) would probably be the most you could do, just config-wise.
i thought that tf_competitive_preround_duration would be useful here but it only works in valve competitive, apparently
A while back I played on a server/config with this (I think it was a little shorter) and liked it a lot. I'm not sure if it's a config thing or a plugin thing though, which would be a deciding factor in any league's decision to do it.
[/quote]
as far as i know through my futzing about with configs
mp_bonusroundtime 15 (15 is the max) would probably be the most you could do, just config-wise.
i thought that tf_competitive_preround_duration would be useful here but it only works in valve competitive, apparently
Tery_I feel the EU / AU / global ruleset provides more overall.
Thank you for calling it EU/AU ruleset. Everyone just calling it the ETF2L ruleset makes me sad :(
On a more serious note, thank you for writing this all out Botmode, add this to the list of reasons I have immense respect for you!
Initially I'd like to see EU/AU/NA all on the same rulesets and formats, obviously the easiest route is for NA to mirror AU/EU, but at the same time, I'd hope they have a strong line of communication and we can change things, IE if the survey shows many think win limit 5 is better than windiff 5, that EU and AU might shift to win limit 5 to keep everything the same. Im tired of casting multiple regions and sometimes confusing myself on which format I'm casting lol.
[quote=Tery_]I feel the EU / AU / global ruleset provides more overall.[/quote]
Thank you for calling it EU/AU ruleset. Everyone just calling it the ETF2L ruleset makes me sad :(
On a more serious note, thank you for writing this all out Botmode, add this to the list of reasons I have immense respect for you!
Initially I'd like to see EU/AU/NA all on the same rulesets and formats, obviously the easiest route is for NA to mirror AU/EU, but at the same time, I'd hope they have a strong line of communication and we can change things, IE if the survey shows many think win limit 5 is better than windiff 5, that EU and AU might shift to win limit 5 to keep everything the same. Im tired of casting multiple regions and sometimes confusing myself on which format I'm casting lol.
Thank you for calling it EU/AU ruleset. Everyone just calling it the ETF2L ruleset makes me sad :(
On a more serious note, thank you for writing this all out Botmode, add this to the list of reasons I have immense respect for you!
Initially I'd like to see EU/AU/NA all on the same rulesets and formats, obviously the easiest route is for NA to mirror AU/EU, but at the same time, I'd hope they have a strong line of communication and we can change things, IE if the survey shows many think win limit 5 is better than windiff 5, that EU and AU might shift to win limit 5 to keep everything the same. Im tired of casting multiple regions and sometimes confusing myself on which format I'm casting lol.
I definitely think the 30 minute, single-half system would be interesting to try but ONLY if paired with the bo2 system with progressing maps of the week like you mentioned
More than that though, I really appreciate that you got past the minutia of the ruleset and actually started looking at some of the weird language on the RGL website that will inevitably lead to some giant drama thread in a few months; in particular, the overly harsh sandbagging rules and the broadcast stuff absolutely needs to be addressed
I’m also generally not in favor of a system with an incredibly-defined “match night is day x at time y” system a la highlander, because I think I’d much rather prioritize team/player happiness and whatever allows the highest level of gameplay (which allowing for scheduling helps because teams can more easily ensure they have their starting 6 and sufficient practice time) over the broadcast viewership advantage of a set time- if there even is one, which I’m not 100% sure is borne out by evidence
I definitely think the 30 minute, single-half system would be interesting to try but ONLY if paired with the bo2 system with progressing maps of the week like you mentioned
More than that though, I really appreciate that you got past the minutia of the ruleset and actually started looking at some of the weird language on the RGL website that will inevitably lead to some giant drama thread in a few months; in particular, the overly harsh sandbagging rules and the broadcast stuff absolutely needs to be addressed
I’m also generally not in favor of a system with an incredibly-defined “match night is day x at time y” system a la highlander, because I think I’d much rather prioritize team/player happiness and whatever allows the highest level of gameplay (which allowing for scheduling helps because teams can more easily ensure they have their starting 6 and sufficient practice time) over the broadcast viewership advantage of a set time- if there even is one, which I’m not 100% sure is borne out by evidence
More than that though, I really appreciate that you got past the minutia of the ruleset and actually started looking at some of the weird language on the RGL website that will inevitably lead to some giant drama thread in a few months; in particular, the overly harsh sandbagging rules and the broadcast stuff absolutely needs to be addressed
I’m also generally not in favor of a system with an incredibly-defined “match night is day x at time y” system a la highlander, because I think I’d much rather prioritize team/player happiness and whatever allows the highest level of gameplay (which allowing for scheduling helps because teams can more easily ensure they have their starting 6 and sufficient practice time) over the broadcast viewership advantage of a set time- if there even is one, which I’m not 100% sure is borne out by evidence
DreamboatThank you for calling it EU/AU ruleset. Everyone just calling it the ETF2L ruleset makes me sad :(
:(
I think myself and most other league administrators would be really glad to see a more united ruleset. The global whitelist was the first step and I hope that the next big NA league will follow suit and give us a (for the most part) universal ruleset.
[quote=Dreamboat]Thank you for calling it EU/AU ruleset. Everyone just calling it the ETF2L ruleset makes me sad :([/quote]
:(
I think myself and most other league administrators would be really glad to see a more united ruleset. The global whitelist was the first step and I hope that the next big NA league will follow suit and give us a (for the most part) universal ruleset.
:(
I think myself and most other league administrators would be really glad to see a more united ruleset. The global whitelist was the first step and I hope that the next big NA league will follow suit and give us a (for the most part) universal ruleset.
stephmp_bonusroundtime 15 (15 is the max) would probably be the most you could do, just config-wise.
If you want to push it as far as using server mods, it should be possible to raise the max as long as FCVAR_REPLICATED doesn't fuck with that, which I doubt it does.
I know there's a generic SourceMod plugin that lets you change ConVar flags (mainly used to disable the sv_cheats requirement) but I'm not sure if there's one that lets you fuck with default/min/max, I'm gonna start looking, otherwise it should be fairly easy to implement.
What I'm getting at is, if this is wanted, it can be achieved. Most likely.
EDIT: sm_cvar was the command I was thinking about, according to docs it doesn't respect min/max bounds, I'll try this locally.
EDIT 2: ^ didn't work, this does; https://github.com/ldesgoui/unbounded_mp_bonusroundtime/releases
[quote=steph]mp_bonusroundtime 15 (15 is the max) would probably be the most you could do, just config-wise.[/quote]
If you want to push it as far as using server mods, it should be possible to raise the max as long as FCVAR_REPLICATED doesn't fuck with that, which I doubt it does.
I know there's a generic SourceMod plugin that lets you change ConVar flags (mainly used to disable the sv_cheats requirement) but I'm not sure if there's one that lets you fuck with default/min/max, I'm gonna start looking, otherwise it should be fairly easy to implement.
What I'm getting at is, if this is wanted, it can be achieved. Most likely.
EDIT: sm_cvar was the command I was thinking about, according to docs it doesn't respect min/max bounds, I'll try this locally.
EDIT 2: ^ didn't work, this does; https://github.com/ldesgoui/unbounded_mp_bonusroundtime/releases
If you want to push it as far as using server mods, it should be possible to raise the max as long as FCVAR_REPLICATED doesn't fuck with that, which I doubt it does.
I know there's a generic SourceMod plugin that lets you change ConVar flags (mainly used to disable the sv_cheats requirement) but I'm not sure if there's one that lets you fuck with default/min/max, I'm gonna start looking, otherwise it should be fairly easy to implement.
What I'm getting at is, if this is wanted, it can be achieved. Most likely.
EDIT: sm_cvar was the command I was thinking about, according to docs it doesn't respect min/max bounds, I'll try this locally.
EDIT 2: ^ didn't work, this does; https://github.com/ldesgoui/unbounded_mp_bonusroundtime/releases
beatricetaking this comment from the RGL thread, if you guys actually care about this stuff then be sure to take the survey
blog post about changes: http://sixes.rgl.gg/Public/Articles/Default.aspx?a=1250
league survey: http://sixes.rgl.gg/Players/My/Survey.aspx?s=5
personally i'm a little iffy on taking a survey where i have to create an account and provide the owner with my steam info. this gives them the ability to filter results from people they don't like, and forces me to become a "registered" player - just my old person paranoia but adding an extra hoop to jump through like this always makes me concerned when you're trying to collect the largest amount of unbiased data as possible. it will not surprise me for this reason if botmodes (unrestricted) survey and the rgl (gatekeeped) survey show differing results.
[quote=beatrice]taking this comment from the RGL thread, if you guys actually care about this stuff then be sure to take the survey
blog post about changes: http://sixes.rgl.gg/Public/Articles/Default.aspx?a=1250
league survey: http://sixes.rgl.gg/Players/My/Survey.aspx?s=5[/quote]
personally i'm a little iffy on taking a survey where i have to create an account and provide the owner with my steam info. this gives them the ability to filter results from people they don't like, and forces me to become a "registered" player - just my old person paranoia but adding an extra hoop to jump through like this always makes me concerned when you're trying to collect the largest amount of unbiased data as possible. it will not surprise me for this reason if botmodes (unrestricted) survey and the rgl (gatekeeped) survey show differing results.
blog post about changes: http://sixes.rgl.gg/Public/Articles/Default.aspx?a=1250
league survey: http://sixes.rgl.gg/Players/My/Survey.aspx?s=5[/quote]
personally i'm a little iffy on taking a survey where i have to create an account and provide the owner with my steam info. this gives them the ability to filter results from people they don't like, and forces me to become a "registered" player - just my old person paranoia but adding an extra hoop to jump through like this always makes me concerned when you're trying to collect the largest amount of unbiased data as possible. it will not surprise me for this reason if botmodes (unrestricted) survey and the rgl (gatekeeped) survey show differing results.
samifacepersonally i'm a little iffy on taking a survey where i have to create an account and provide the owner with my steam info. this gives them the ability to filter results from people they don't like, and forces me to become a "registered" player - just my old person paranoia but adding an extra hoop to jump through like this always makes me concerned when you're trying to collect the largest amount of unbiased data as possible. it will not surprise me for this reason if botmodes (unrestricted) survey and the rgl (gatekeeped) survey show differing results.
literally the first question on botmode's survey was a required question where you had to list your alias, i don't really see a difference, also it's not really meant for you, it's for the people who stre actually going to be directly effected by this because they're going to be playing in the league. this is actually so silly to worry about
[quote=samiface]personally i'm a little iffy on taking a survey where i have to create an account and provide the owner with my steam info. this gives them the ability to filter results from people they don't like, and forces me to become a "registered" player - just my old person paranoia but adding an extra hoop to jump through like this always makes me concerned when you're trying to collect the largest amount of unbiased data as possible. it will not surprise me for this reason if botmodes (unrestricted) survey and the rgl (gatekeeped) survey show differing results.[/quote]
literally the first question on botmode's survey was a required question where you had to list your alias, i don't really see a difference, also it's not really meant for you, it's for the people who stre actually going to be directly effected by this because they're going to be playing in the league. this is actually so silly to worry about
literally the first question on botmode's survey was a required question where you had to list your alias, i don't really see a difference, also it's not really meant for you, it's for the people who stre actually going to be directly effected by this because they're going to be playing in the league. this is actually so silly to worry about
beatricesamifacepersonally i'm a little iffy on taking a survey where i have to create an account and provide the owner with my steam info. this gives them the ability to filter results from people they don't like, and forces me to become a "registered" player - just my old person paranoia but adding an extra hoop to jump through like this always makes me concerned when you're trying to collect the largest amount of unbiased data as possible. it will not surprise me for this reason if botmodes (unrestricted) survey and the rgl (gatekeeped) survey show differing results.literally the first question on botmode's survey was a required question where you had to list your alias, i don't really see a difference, also it's not really meant for you, it's for the people who stre actually going to be directly effected by this because they're going to be playing in the league. this is actually so silly to worry about
I stopped participating in ESEA because it was a poor product (ffl because of anti cheat issues, ffl because of merc rules, shitty format and scheduling, etc). I am exactly who this survey SHOULD be for. botmode's survey didn't require registration, and enabled people to fakenick if they wanted to remain anonymous.
Further to my point, people who are already registered for rgl presumably agree with or are willing to play in the league already. Just looking at this from a purely data analysis perspective- something which is quick and easy will get you more responses than something which is not. If we were all already midway through a season of rgl and they wanted to count only current players (like say for the season awards) that would justify registered voting. but we're not- the survey is asking for data from a perspective playerbase, not one which has already been onboarded.
[quote=beatrice][quote=samiface]personally i'm a little iffy on taking a survey where i have to create an account and provide the owner with my steam info. this gives them the ability to filter results from people they don't like, and forces me to become a "registered" player - just my old person paranoia but adding an extra hoop to jump through like this always makes me concerned when you're trying to collect the largest amount of unbiased data as possible. it will not surprise me for this reason if botmodes (unrestricted) survey and the rgl (gatekeeped) survey show differing results.[/quote]
literally the first question on botmode's survey was a required question where you had to list your alias, i don't really see a difference, also it's not really meant for you, it's for the people who stre actually going to be directly effected by this because they're going to be playing in the league. this is actually so silly to worry about[/quote]
I stopped participating in ESEA because it was a poor product (ffl because of anti cheat issues, ffl because of merc rules, shitty format and scheduling, etc). I am exactly who this survey SHOULD be for. botmode's survey didn't require registration, and enabled people to fakenick if they wanted to remain anonymous.
Further to my point, people who are already registered for rgl presumably agree with or are willing to play in the league already. Just looking at this from a purely data analysis perspective- something which is quick and easy will get you more responses than something which is not. If we were all already midway through a season of rgl and they wanted to count only current players (like say for the season awards) that would justify registered voting. but we're not- the survey is asking for data from a perspective playerbase, not one which has already been onboarded.
literally the first question on botmode's survey was a required question where you had to list your alias, i don't really see a difference, also it's not really meant for you, it's for the people who stre actually going to be directly effected by this because they're going to be playing in the league. this is actually so silly to worry about[/quote]
I stopped participating in ESEA because it was a poor product (ffl because of anti cheat issues, ffl because of merc rules, shitty format and scheduling, etc). I am exactly who this survey SHOULD be for. botmode's survey didn't require registration, and enabled people to fakenick if they wanted to remain anonymous.
Further to my point, people who are already registered for rgl presumably agree with or are willing to play in the league already. Just looking at this from a purely data analysis perspective- something which is quick and easy will get you more responses than something which is not. If we were all already midway through a season of rgl and they wanted to count only current players (like say for the season awards) that would justify registered voting. but we're not- the survey is asking for data from a perspective playerbase, not one which has already been onboarded.
Please
sign in through STEAM
to post a comment.