Yay it's here! :)




ps. Hagge not first!

The rules regarding playing vs American clans are slightly unclear. Would all European players be required to ping up to 51 in accordance with the equal ping rule? And what determines whether you use an NL or a UK server?

P.S. Yay, EQL!

All the rules are fully explained in the rules section. But yea for americans the situation doesn't really change. It is still 51ms max anyone is forced to ping up to.

On another note, can't have a news post like this without any drama so let me start some.

Equal ping system over avg ping system? really? :S
This means hpw players will have a huge advantage over lpb's.
For example SR-SD and zero in lineup who always has around 50ms to .dk servers would force one player in SD that always plays with 12-20ms to suddenly play with 50ms.
You could say that it would be equal but a player who never plays with 50ms compared to a player that always plays with it will have a big disadvantage.

Firstly: No, it is not fully explained in the rules section. That is why I asked here.


Secondly: Well the average ping system has its disadvantages too. 4 guys with real ping of 14ms (showing on scoreboard as 26) would be considered to have a ping disadvantage against 3*12 + 1*51. In practical terms, that is clearly nonsense.

The equal ping system also actively encourages teams to try to keep their opponents pings as low as possible, meaning we'll see more games with everyone on 38 instead of 7*12s and a 51 (or something equally ludicrous) which is a positive effect.

I have to agree that someone accustomed to playing on 51ms clearly has an advantage against someone who normally plays on 12ms. On the other hand, getting to play 12ms vs 51ms because you're only used to 12 hardly seems fair either. It's Avenger vs Locktar all over again. Ping is an unfortunate reality of online tournaments, and the fairest possible solution isn't always perfectly even for everyone. We just have to figure out which solution that is.

The average ping rules (especially those of past EQLs) and equal ping rules both have their various advantages and disadvantages. I honestly don't know which one I prefer, but I think this is at least better than the poorly thought-out/poorly defined rules that plagued many of the important div1 games, and every single game I tried to play over the last two seasons.

SR vs SD is actually an interesting example, rkd. I wonder would everyone manage to get <51 if they played south of Scandinavia, or would en_karl, from the frozen wilds of the north, dip into 51ms territory.

"Secondly: Well the average ping system has its disadvantages too. 4 guys with real ping of 14ms (showing on scoreboard as 26) would be considered to have a ping disadvantage against 3*12 + 1*51. In practical terms, that is clearly nonsense."

Eh what? 4*26ms = 104. 3*12 + 1*51= 87. Which would mean the 3*12ms players would have to ping up 5-6ms each to 18ms~.
Isn't that better than all 3 players pinging up to 26ms, and one of the 26ms players to 51?

And I don't know what you mean with "4 guys with real ping of 14ms (showing on scoreboard as 26)" because I have never seen anything like that. I have had 14ms, 19ms, 20ms etc. Never seen quake display my 14ms as 26ms cause it doesn't want to display the numbers inbetween.
Like quake3 does. You either have 0-10ms or 33ms in q3.
So no idea what you are talking about there. please explain :)

Or maybe you were talking about the fact that 12ms ingame = 0ms to server? if so isn't 51ms ingame = 39ms to server and the ms difference is exactly the same?
Or are you saying _only_ people with 26ms have this feature?...

Something like pinging up precisely to 18ms is impossible to enforce, since the only visible pings are those shown by the inaccurate scoreboard. Also, pings between multiples of ~13ms are only different for those who choose to use cl_earlypackets.

Quakeworld servers only display pings based on jumps of ~13ms (1s/77), applying a terribly flawed algorithm to guess on anything in between. If your real ping is around 14ms, the scoreboard will display it as ~26ms to everyone. But the flawed scoreboard ping applies to the equal pings rule too, so I guess that's irrelevant.

The relevant point is that someone on 26ms is on no significant disadvantage vs someone on 12ms. Someone on 51ms, however, is heavily disadvantaged. Making the team with the 3*12ms guys ping up does nothing to address the fact that THEY were the team with the practical disadvantage in the first place. If anything, it makes an already present problem slightly worse.

This is why that particular implementation of the average pings rule was quite flawed. It ensured that no single player had a significant advantage, but it did nothing to prevent significant disadvantages.

Realistically, I guess this means that the highest ping someone actually has to reach via delaypackets is 39ms.

Okay what I'm trying to figure out here is if I have 0ms it will be displayed as 12ms, right? And if I got 12ms it will be displayed as 12ms (or 24ms?)?

According to what you've said (assuming I understood) if I got 12ms to server it will be shown as 12ms on scoreboard, and if I got 14ms to server it will be displayed as 26ms on scoreboard, even tho the actual ping difference between us is only 2ms?

Which wouldn't be impossible, such things are quite common in alot of fps games with scoreboard showing inaccurate ms for certain ranges.
I mean most swe players got exactly 25ms to .fi servers no matter ISP. And I'm guessing the actual ms between these players are different.

For starters, you will never have 0ms. 12ms is 12ms, 22ms is 22ms. Without earlypackets (ezquake), and you have < 12ms, your packets will be handled with 12.98ms intervalls. If you have 15ms ping, you will get 25(26)ms ingame. It wouldn't matter if you had 14ms or 23ms, its still equal.

With earlypackets packets aren't bound to that limit, and if you do got 14ms you will have 14ms. Scoreboard might show something else, but that isn't correct. Type "show net" or "r_netstats 1" if you use old hud, (ezquake) and you will see your actual min/max/avg ping.

Problem with earlypackets, and also without earlypackets, is when packets arent handled at even intervalls. Like earlypackets is off, you have 25ms on scoreboard, but your show net shows that you have 14ms min and 25ms max. That means you will get a jittery experience with rockets "getting stuck" in the air etc. It happens when your ping isnt stable and you are just in between like 12-14ms. So people used delaypacket so they would get perhaps 15ms which became stable 25ms.

A lot of text and I'm tired.. IRC me if anything else :)

Ah forgot: So what Stev means is that people that has like 10ms ping to server, can just delay their connection 4ms to 14ms and scoreboard will show an incorrect 25ms.

If pings are
Clan A: 13 13 13 25
Clan B: 13 13 13 51
can clan A raise any player to 51ms or does it have to be the one with 25? If 25ms guy is their starplayer, the team might perform better by screwing up someone else's ping instead.

I like how Kalma just puts this down to earth. The likes of you that know this in and out, why don't you put down charts with examples of differently pinged lineups? Then there could be no misunderstanding with that in hand.

yea kalma brings up an interesting point :o if the 25ms player isn't the one to ping up to 51ms then someone in team B has to ping up to 25ms :P

#16 Surely artificially raised ms doesn't count like that. :) There are f_'s to see delaypacket and proxies I think.

I'm sure the one to ping up can be any player. If that happens to rise their avg higher, then that is their choice. In my opinion the rules are pretty clear in that artificially raised ping doesn't obligate to further action of course.

Just ping up to 999 everyone and let antilag do its magic mkay?

If you ping up to 1200000ms antilag will play the whole round for you.

After I don't know how many seasons without these rules please add bo5 match picking procedure. After the countless times that not having these rules caused problems I don't understand how you can not have added these. There are several systems possible that people argue about and there have been terrible systems implemented in earlier QW leagues so please use one that is fair. The system you used in EQL Pro was ok in terms of fairness. "•Map procedure in playoffs Bo5: Pick, pick, 3rd map the one not chosen yet, then the team in 1-2 situation picks, other team picks the last!" The fact that in case of a 5-mapper one team always picks one more map and that one team actually can choose the decider means that the last map would never be the fairest one. There are more things flawed in this two line rule though, for example how often maps can be played and some other things but I won't elaborate now.

There is an error in your current bo3 rules too, the first map is not decided by cointoss but the team that chooses is decided by cointoss.
Keeping in mind you want to use this cointoss system one of the suggestions I make is the following bo5 procedure:

•Start the procedure by coin toss (/cmd rnd Team1 Team2)
•The winner of the coin toss decides who picks the first map and whose map will be played first
•This means that before the first map starts the other team must also have stated their choice of map
•If the score is 1-1 after the first two maps the team that lost the cointoss can choose who picks first and which map will be played first, this means both teams will have to make their choices clear
•If the score is 2-0 the team that is behind will pick the third map, the fourth map will be chosen by the team that was leading 2-0
•The decider will be a map which both teams agree upon, if this is not possible both teams will discard possible maps one by one until one remains which will be the decider. Which team starts with throwing maps out can be decided by cointoss

If there are five maps allowed you can force that all maps will be played, leaving no choice of decider. You can also allow no maps being played twice in the first four but leaving the rules above regarding the decider. Another option is that all 5 maps must be played unless teams agree that the decider will be another map, this is actually a sensible possibility.

You can make a lot of small changes to adjust these rules to your liking, for example you can allow the team that has not been chosen by the winner of the initial cointoss to make their mapchoice after map1 has been played. Same with the choice after it's 1-1.

There is a possibility to give teams an advantage if they trail 0-2 to increase chances of a 5 mapper by letting them pick both the 3rd and the 4th map, keeping the decider system in tact or, to eliminate this advantage again, by letting the team that was leading 2-0 choose the decider, obviously this system is a little flawed in ways of fairness and it's doubtful the decider will be exciting so I advice against this system but it's a possibility.

The rules are currently showing tb3 only allowed as maps (copied from eql pro?) which can change your bo5 procedure. You'll have to make a decision if maps are allowed to be played two times, three, four or even five times if the teams want to.
Most likely you'll allow maps to be played a maximum amount of two times, this means at least one map is automatically eliminated to be the decider which can cause trouble with picking a decider again unless you say that teams can still decide to play this map for the 3rd time if they agree on it or if it's the one left after tossing the others, tbh this is a sensible possibility but leaving it available for tossing most likely means that 1 team lost this twice, will throw it out and gives the other team the choice between the other two maps. In some situations the map played twice might be won by different teams but it's not likely.

You can decide that tb3 must be played as the first three maps in all games, this would mean that you can disregard all the rules stated above. Obviously the only options after three maps are the scores of 3-0 and 2-1.
The 2-1 leaves several possibilities, the team 2-1 behind could pick the 4th map and the other team the 5th, which is very unfair because the decider will probably not be an equal game. You can keep the same rules for the decider as stated before, keeping the map that has already been played twice in the system, this means you give the team that was trailing 2-1 an advantage because they will be the only team that has actually picked a map. The chances are very high that team A that was trailing 1-2 picks the 1 they won as 4th and that team B eliminates this map from the 3, meaning that team A will choose from the two maps that they lost, making it even more unfair.

In case it's tb3 and you use the rules I set out first there are differences that can be made, if you have a maximum of maps being played twice and both teams pick one map twice you'll end up with one map left, forcing this to be the decider, tbh I would always, in every scenario, add the possibility for teams to agree on a decider, regardless of who picked what or how often you want a map to be played maximum.

The reason why I (not strongly) advise against a system where you force tb3 to be played as the first three maps because it's basically impossible to get a fair decider after this. As you'll read in the following paragraph it's never fair, but by forcing tb3 as first three you elminate the possibility that clans pick their map twice leaving one which is about the only case that does leave a fair decider under all circumstances (agreement, tossing and forcing the not played map).

Another option is that maps can be played a maximum of twice during the first four and then include all maps in the tossing or agreement which causes the problem I mentioned before in case one team picks a map twice, wins it twice and they can't agree on a decider.

If you force tb3 there is always the option to let the team that was leading 2-1 pick the decider, meaning that both teams picked 1 map.

If you don't force tb3 and only use 3 maps you can add a rule that if one of the teams won the same map twice the other team is allowed to pick the decider.

I hope you will make a good rule now. Good luck!

From experience the bo3 games differ alot.

Some times you enter the server, the opponents say: we take dm3 and then just ready. After that they ask what our map is.

Other times they might ask about your map first, reluctant to give up theirs so you pretty much have to do cmd rnd team1 team2. What happens next differs a lot. The selected team might pick a map (this usually happens) or they might pick a map and then demand to play opponents map first, or they think they are entitled to decide who picks first. Try to tell them what they should do and they mostly ignore it.

Basically: map picking procedure differs a lot and its not even sure that clans will follow it even if you state the rules about bo3 map picking. If it takes too much time most clans just go "yeye ready" in order to get it going the way they like.

But, this doesnt matter too much since most games are smooth and hazzlefree anyway.

In bo5 there is always much more at stake since its playoffs and ppl read the rules more thouroughly. Even if the rules have been somewhat ambigous.

:)

As always I didn't read very well and noticed now that you indeed decided to make this league tb3 only.

Use the regular system I posted if you host leagues with five maps again, just save this somewhere!

TLDR last post, my advice after further consideration:
I strongly suggest you make two sets of rules for tb3 bo5. In one the teams agree to play tb3 as the first three maps (this used to happen a lot) and in the other they use the regular system where both teams pick one map and after two maps they both pick one again following the standard system from my previous post.

In both cases it seems to be most fair to add the rule that if the teams can't agree on a decider and one of the teams won a map twice that the other team will pick the decider.
If none of the teams won a map twice agreement or tossing should follow.

In case only two different maps were played in the first four you'll have to decide if you want to force the remaining map to be the decider or if you leave room for agreement and/or tossing.

Don't forget to add how often maps are allowed to be played per match if you want to restrict this, I assume you want a maximum of two.

If you want to allow decider agreement by teams under all circumstances, which is most fair but can lead to a map being played three times, don't forget to add this exception to the maximum map rule. A map can also be played three times if you leave all three maps available for tossing, I would like to see this.

When considering this don't forget the option that tossing only happens if for example team A wins dm2 and e1m2, B wins dm3 and e1m2, they can also agree to play e1m2. I would most certainly allow this scenario but you can consider not allowing the scenario in which one map doesn't get played at all.

You'll have to make a decision on this, I suggest you allow teams to pick the same map as decider even if that means one map doesn't get played. This is because the options are that team A won dm2 twice, B won dm3 twice, they decide to play one of those, means that either one team is dumb and/or think they have a good shot, it's fair because they agreed.

In case both teams won dm2 and dm3 once for example and they agree to play one of these as decider, it's the fairest solution again and should give a good game.

If they don't agree but if they toss maps out the situation will only be unfair if you compare it to forcing e1m2 to be played as decider and if one of the teams is way better on e1m2 and if both teams won dm2+dm3 once; because if team A is way better on e1m2 it will be tossed by B, leaving A to pick a map that was won by both teams once. If both won twice on their own this system is still very fair because A can then pick the map they won twice or the one they lost twice.

If you want all maps to be played you can force e1m2 as decider in situations like these. You can also keep the option of agreement open in these situations and not allow tossing to make sure the situation above doesn't occur. You can also allow tossing because both teams won both maps team A can pick from meaning that the decider should be equal and could be considered fair.

I would like to see the rules implemented with the option to choose between playing tb3 and picking one at a time and always leaving teams the option to agree on the decider, also allowing maps to be played three times if one of them is the decider.

•Start the procedure by coin toss (/cmd rnd Team1 Team2)
•The winner of the coin toss decides who picks the first map and whose map will be played first
•This means that before the first map starts the other team must also have stated their choice of map
•If the score is 1-1 after the first two maps the team that lost the cointoss can choose who picks first and which map will be played first, this means both teams will have to make their choices clear
•If the score is 2-0 the team that is behind will pick the third map, the fourth map will be chosen by the team that was leading 2-0
•The decider will be a map which both teams agree upon, if they don't agree and one of the teams has won one map twice the other team picks the deciding map
•If neither team has won one map twice both teams will discard possible maps one by one until one remains which will be the decider. Which team starts tossing will be decided by coin toss (/cmd rnd Team1 Team2)

•Teams are also allowed to agree to play tb3 as the start of their match
•The team that is trailing 1-2 after this picks the 4th map
•The decider will be a map which both teams agree upon, if they don't agree and one of the teams has won one map twice the other team picks the deciding map
•If neither team has won one map twice both teams will discard possible maps one by one until one remains which will be the decider. Which team starts tossing will be decided by coin toss (/cmd rnd Team1 Team2)

•The decider will be a map which both teams agree upon, if they don't agree and one of the teams has won one map twice the other team picks the deciding map
•If neither team has won one map twice both teams will discard one map, the remainding map will be the decider. Which team starts tossing will be decided by coin toss (/cmd rnd Team1 Team2)

•Maps are allowed to be played twice during the first four maps. Maps can be played three times if one time is the decider

In case you'll use this you'll still have to add if you enforce all three maps to be played in the dm2/dm2/dm3/dm3 situation or if you then also allow agreement and/or tossing. As said before I'd like to see agreement allowed at least. Example of what you could use:

•If after four maps one map hasn't been played the decider has to be the unplayed map (unless the teams agree otherwise)
•If both teams have won one map twice both teams will discard one possible map, the remaining map will be the decider (unless the teams agree otherwise). Which team starts tossing will be decided by coin toss (/cmd rnd Team1 Team2)

Wall of text again, sorry.

I quite like the old tb3 bo5 system, as seen in EQL Pro (as stupid as bo5 with 3 maps is).

Team A picks.
Team B picks.
Remaining map is played.
Losing team picks.
Other team Picks.

It's incredibly simple, it means that all matches will feature all 3 maps (even if the result is 3-0), and the winning team will never have an advantage in number of maps picked.

"Simple" and "fair" are exactly what you want when it comes to rules for tournaments, so changing the rules isn't necessary, but perhaps documenting them in the rules section would be nice.

If we just want excitement and even games then this setup would be best:

Team A picks
Team B picks
Remaining map is played.
Losing team picks.
Decider both teams tosses and remaining map is played.

This would ensure that both teams "fave/best" map would be tossed by the other team. And the map most likely to be even will be played as decider.

This would however mean that the loser team gets 2 mapchoices and the other team only 1.
So if it's fair or not could be argued.
But it would be the most entertaining and the decider map would still be one of the maps that the team that only got to choose once won on.

Stev's way is the most fair one and should be used.
Tho again for entertainment issues the order of choosing could be different.
Should be noted that while the 5th map might/will be more exciting to watch it is less likely that we will reach to a 5th map this way:

Team A picks
Team B picks
Team A picks
Team B picks
Remaining map is played, if all played then map toss.

If it's 2-0 for Team A then 3rd map will be decided by Team B instead and fourth map by Team A.
IE:

Team A
Team B
Team B
Team A




ps. DID YOU SEE WHAT I DID THERE?!?!

Too boring drama topics so far. :)

I think it's pretty dramatic neither Stev nor rkd understood why my rules should lead to more fair and equal games than theirs but I guess my posts were too long to read.

There are just two things I want to point out, the first is how can you think that letting one team chose the decider or tossing maps will lead to a more fair way of choosing a decider than if both teams agree to which map it should be, this should also lead to the most entertaining game because both teams think they'll have a chance.

Second, how is one team picking the decider without setting any exceptions ever the most fair option. That's just bullshit, I thought I was pretty clear on that but apparently didn't come across.

If you want to enforce tb3 as first three maps I made some simple and fair rules.

•Teams play tb3 as the start of their match
•Start the procedure by coin toss (/cmd rnd Team1 Team2)
•The winner of the coin toss decides who picks the first map and whose map will be played first, the other is played second, the remaining map third
•The team that is 1-2 behind picks the 4th map
•The decider will be a map which both teams agree upon
•If they don't agree and one of the teams has won one map twice the other team picks the deciding map
•If they don't agree and if neither team has won one map twice both teams will discard a map and the remaining will be the decider. Which team starts tossing will be decided by coin toss (/cmd rnd Team1 Team2)

First of all, what's the difference between tossing and "agreeing on a map"??...................................................... ............................................................ ..............

ITS THE _EXACT_ SAME THING.
When each team gets to toss one map they say "We really don't want to play this one and would never have agreed to play it" and thus they _AGREE_ that the map that is left will be played.


And apparently it is you who does not read:
"This would ensure that both teams "fave/best" map would be tossed by the other team. And the map most likely to be even will be played as decider."

And ofcourse the most equal and fair part is to give both teams 2 map choices each no matter who is leading or losing.
And one map that is _agreed_ upon to play by tossing of the 2 maps that the teams don't _agree_ to play on.
Maybe you understand now that I put in the word agree?

Never gonna understand how you can not see "tossing" and "agreeing" as the exact same things.

The only problem I have with the tb3 bo5 system that is now is that the "decider" map is played as the 3rd map basically. So the fifth map will be one teams best map.
Which is why I like:

Team A picks
Team B picks
Team A picks
Team B picks
Remaining map or decided by _agreeing_ on a map by tossing.

If team A leads 2-0 then 3rd map decided by team B and 4th map by team A.

THERE IS NO OTHER WAY THAT IS AS FAIR AS THIS, PERIOD.
Only question is where the "decider" map should be put, it's currently the 3rd map played.


ps. If I had it my way then the first suggestion I had in my previous post would be the setup, which would make for more even and exciting but unfair playoff games :)

Also where in gods name do you get from this that one team gets to choose one map more than the other team???????!?!?!?!?!

"•Map procedure in playoffs Bo5: Pick, pick, 3rd map the one not chosen yet, then the team in 1-2 situation picks, other team picks the last!" The fact that in case of a 5-mapper one team always picks one more map and that one team actually can choose the decider means that the last map would never be the fairest one."

You are clearly stating that both teams get to choose 2 maps, then somehow you come with the conclusion that one team gets one more map choice then the other.. how the hell?!
Read what you are posting man..

#27
I really wouldn't call your procedure simple. Or at least not simple enough for the target group. :) Too many tosses, ifs and buts.

"The team that is 1-2 behind picks the 4th map"
This is not even an attempt at fair. Losing is rewarded... more like charity. I think the idea is just to make it more likely we see 5th map.

Chill out, guys. :E

Purity: It's not just about picking the decider, it's about having equal say in the total map picks. In your system, the team that takes the lead 2-1 gets an overall disadvantage every single time. It might lead to more equal scores, but not to more fair games.

Bottom line, teams should get equal amount of map picks, like the current bo5 setup is.

The only thing we could argue is the placement/order of these picks for most entertaining games to watch.
I personally would prefer that after 4 maps both teams have picked maps twice, and if a 5th map is needed it will be the remaining map or decided by tossing so that the decider map ends up being the most likely map to be a close game.

Team A picks
Team B picks
Team A picks
Team B picks
Remaining map is played, if none remaining then decided by toss.

If Team A gets a 2-0 lead then Team B gets to pick twice in a row (no change if it's 2-0 to Team B):

Team A picks
Team B picks
Team B picks
Team A picks
Remaining map is played, if none remaining then decided by toss.


PROS: Much less chance of 3-0 games and even if there is a 3-0 game it should be more entertaining for spectators cause the losing team picks twice during those 3 maps (especially good for early round playoff games that can be super boring to watch).
If we get to a 5th map it should be the most even map between the two teams.

CONS: We can't be sure that all 3 maps are played unless it goes to map5.
While there is a greater chance that we will see a 4th map being played, it is less likely that we will see a fifth map if one team gets a 2-0 start.
Otherwise should be the same chance as eql PRO rules.

I don't really see the point of having all tb3 maps played straight away tho, if it ends 3-0 I'd rather watch some tight games on the map/maps the losing team
think they got the most chance on.

To sum up: Exciting early rounds of playoffs (higher chance of map4 being played).
Last map (map5) will be more likely to be even.
Can't guarantee all 3 tb3 maps played unless the game goes to map5.
Less chance to get to a map5 for weaker teams (with the eql PRO system they would maybe get to map5 but would be very likely to get raped in map5).

I did misread that rkd, that was my mistake but doesn't make any difference to the rules I set out later.

You're mostly repeating things I've said especially #32 is something I've completely covered already, the system that is most fair (both teams pick two, decider by tossing) is most likely not wanted by the crew that's why I set out other options too. Very important factors which I stated several times are if the crew wants a maximum amount that maps can be played, if they want to force the remaining map to be played as decider or if they want to force start with tb3.

"Never gonna understand how you can not see "tossing" and "agreeing" as the exact same things."

If you toss the second team that tosses picks between two maps, that has nothing to do with agreeing at all.
It's possible both teams are fine with playing all maps because they're about equal, I've seen tossing being random often too because one team didn't care but they had to toss. I've also seen that even if a team lost on a map they decided to agree to play that again, in tossing the second team simply chooses between two maps.

Also it's never going to be fair, especially if you force tb3, I've said this too in the long posts this is way I suggest that teams can decide themselves if they want to play tb3 as first three.
Oh and Kalma and Stev you didn't read my rules at all or they weren't simple enough for you. In probably 90% of the games where tb3 would be forced and my rules used both teams pick 1 map because it's very likely that the team trailing 1-2 will pick the map they won in the first place, then win that again, then the other team can pick the decider. In this scenario both teams pick an equal amount of maps but the fact that the decider is picked by one team is something I really don't like. So saying that it's not even an attempt at being fair or an advantage for the losing team every single time shows serious misunderstanding of the way the rules I suggested work, or you simply didn't read them, I think it's that tbh.

The same with forced deciders which we've seen a lot when there were five maps available, they were often not what teams would've liked to play and ended up in one sided (often kenya) games brining a disappointing end to an exciting match.
On the other hand there is something to be said for the team that is best on all different maps should win but if you ask me if the teams agree they should be allowed to play whatever they want inside the room of the maps available. Just like we saw 3 or even 5 times dm4 in 1on1 games with griffin (against different opponents) on qhlan.
This is another decision for the crew to make, do you want more freedom for the teams or does the crew decide that it's more just or in the idea of the league that the team should win that wins on all different maps, even in this tournament an issue with the decider if you don't force tb3 at start.

Saying the decider is not that important is ridiculous too, what if in a bo3 match one of the teams is allowed to pick the decider, you'd be pissed off. And yes, you do give an advantage to the losing team if you don't force tb3 because you want better games and especially if one team is down 0-2 the winning team has already won the losing teams choice plus the winning team will get the fourth pick and a say in the decider.

Anyway it doesn't seem like I can give you the insight I was hoping to.

Good luck finding two teams that would agree on a decider map rather than tossing maps.

If you didnt mean it like that then im sorry, your massive text threw me off the bone on several occasions... But thats what I could make of it anyway.

Bottom line: The best team is decided by being the best team on a majority of the allowed maps.

Don't see why I bother with this anymore but yes tossing = agreeing.
You will have the same end result.
Anyway won't saying anything more about this, if you don't see it you don't see it.

And I don't see how forcing tb3 is unfair to anyone, it's the exact opposite, if you would want the most fair way to decide a winner then playoffs should be bo6 where all maps are played twice, and if a tiebreaker is needed you play on of the map both teams won once.
If you're only good on one map that's your fault, not the rules.

Either way, your rules are essentially the same as the ones Stev posted (eql PRO rules). The only difference is when the score is 2-1 and it's the losing teams turn to pick a map, if one of the maps they lost was a tight game and they believe they can win it they can make the choice to pick that one instead and thus make sure that if it will be a map5 that the other team doesn't get to play their best map twice while your team does.
And that's a serious flaw, period.




"You can decide that tb3 must be played as the first three maps in all games, this would mean that you can disregard all the rules stated above. Obviously the only options after three maps are the scores of 3-0 and 2-1.
The 2-1 leaves several possibilities, the team 2-1 behind could pick the 4th map and the other team the 5th, which is very unfair because the decider will probably not be an equal game. You can keep the same rules for the decider as stated before, keeping the map that has already been played twice in the system, this means you give the team that was trailing 2-1 an advantage because they will be the only team that has actually picked a map. The chances are very high that team A that was trailing 1-2 picks the 1 they won as 4th and that team B eliminates this map from the 3, meaning that team A will choose from the two maps that they lost, making it even more unfair."


And for us not seeing eye to eye it's simple really, we are both tossing the word "fair" around but we both have a different meaning for them in this scenario.
You are calling it unfair when after the score 2-1 the losing team picks, and then the winning team gets to pick the 5th map. <- (Both teams get one map pick each and incase of a 5-mapper both teams get to play their best map twice. This is as fair as it can get in my eyes)

If anything the only thing that could be considered unfair is the fact that the losing team gets to pick the fourth map when it might aswell be the winning team that should pick the 4th map, and losing pick the 5th.

In the end of that quote you say that if you only win twice on one map it is unfair that the other team tosses that map out because that is the only map you got a shot at winning.
This is not unfair, this just means you aren't good enough.


Look, alot of the things you brought up I actually like and would personally prefer so that games would be tighter and more even.
You just need to stop calling it "fair" when the ways you suggested are really unfair, but they would lead to more exciting games.

About the inefficient display if pings in the scoreboard, is it not possible for ezQuake Devs too change that to a more accurate one?
We have new textures, fullbright, new weapons models, sounds etc. then I shouldnt be a problem to change the ping display...isnt it ?

I could consider participating in eql in the future if the highest ping u had to ping up would be 38ms like it used to be... If i was the one in my team who would have to ping up to 51ms in the final it would mean that I would be playing with the ping 51 allways so i would get used to it... but thats ofc something i dont want to do in the year 2011 =)

Its very likely that zero will be playing in the final so all the rest teams should decide who will be the one to play with 51ms vs sr in their future games and start praccing to play with that. But if u participate in league it means u have read the rules and accept those. For me it's better to wait untill the old working ping rules are back and just play random 4on4s till that =)

I think you'll have to ask Itsinen about that one...

Well, i guess itsinen is going to change the rules back when he wants more teams to participate in the league =)

Whats the problem? Antilag automatically solves all ping problems anyway...

Antilag is great for hitscan but not for RL/movement, and it certainly doesn't make up for the lost reaction time.

As for the map picking being complicated (CBB to read all that was written), you could always put a simple interactive form on this web which would show you what is the next step to pick a map.

So at the beginning you'd enter like two teams' names - "sr" and "sd", enter who won the first coin toss and enter "0:0" as the current match status. So here the magic form would tell you smth like: "SR decides who picks first map, blah blah".

Then later on when it's 2:1 and you have no idea who picks next map, you return to your form, enter "2:1" into a combo box and the form again tells you what should be done next. Actually you'd instead select for each round who won it.

It is much easier to use than to read and interpret the rules, everyone can check it easily, it gives absolute definitive answers for every possible scenario. It simply rules. kthxbye.

JohnNy_cz, when you started mentioning "form on this web" it brought back memories of the Smackdown backoffice which was once infamously used to choose a decider map (dm3) :)

Why was it infamous? Surely back then there was no AJAX so the web forms could hardly be as interactive and user-friendly as nowadays.

If you assume that no clans who asked to be put in div 2 will be put in div 1, then there are only 8 div 1 clans by my reckoning:
SR, SR2, SD, F, CMF, CCCP, TKs and DC.

Here are 2 suggestions for how to get around the low clan count without forcing div 2 clans to play in div 1:

1)
Have each clan play each other twice (14 games each in the season)

2)
Have each clan play each other once in the first 4-5 weeks of the season
THEN
Split the division into the top 4 and bottom 4 and have the top 4 play each other once more, and the bottom 4 do the same

I guess it can also be argued that Fairy Tails are a division 1 team given that they have Maks, Maga and Avenger in their roster...

I put both of those in the wrong comments thread :E

Gaz: That sounds like a div1 team to me (maks, mega ave).

Or could just go for a smaller div1 (8 teams).
Tho if they want to make a bigger div1 like last season or even just make divs even in size then we will have 3~ teams or more whining about being in div1 :P
Lets hope no one quits tho ;(