Choice of maps

2006-11-25 18:27 by term

Like Purity pointed out in "Final stages of EQL4" the current rules for the choice of maps procedure could be made more obvious and possible be even better in EQL5

This might be a better description of the current (EQL4) rules then the previous one:


Best of 5 maps in a 5 map division

0-0:
"cmd rnd" = teamA picks first map (=map1) from [map1|map2|map3|map4|map5],
teamB picks second map (=map2) from [map2|map3|map4|map5]

1-1:
teamB picks third map (=map3) from [map3|map4|map5],
teamA picks fourth map (=map4) from [map4|map5]

2-0:
team down by 0-2 picks third map (=map3) from [map3|map4|map5],
the other team picks the fourth map (=map4) from [map4|map5] if needed

2-2:
fifth map is the only remaining map (=map5)


Best of 5 maps in a TB3 division

0-0:
"cmd rnd" = teamA picks first map (=map1) from [map1|map2|map3],
teamB picks second map (=map2) from [map2|map3]

1-1/2-0:
third map is the only remaining map (=map3)

2-1:
team down by 1-2 picks the fourth map (=map4) may not be =map3
the other team picks the fifth map (=map5) may not be =map4


Now, what we can debate here is the fact that the current "decider" in a TB3 divison is the third map!

One alternative would be to not play all TB3 maps in all cases, ie map1,map2,map1(,map2(,map3)).

And another alternative would be to chose a decider first (by tossing), ie
map1,map2,map3(,map1(,map1)).

I'll add a poll about this later.

---

Comments

#1 2006-11-25 19:56 by Term (85.226.178.XXX)

An alternative to the current TB3 rule could be that if the team down by 1-2 wants the third map then that will be the fifth map and the other team can pick the fourth map.

ie either map1,map2,map3(,map1(,map2))
or map1,map2,map3(,map1|map2(,map3))

#2 2006-11-27 00:43 by JKova (80.221.17.XXX)

you're making it far too complicated. in TB3, just play all 3 maps first, then the team with 1 mapwin picks the 4th map, and the other clan picks the 5th map. So what if the same map is played twice in a row?

The only option when one map would be played three times would be that the last pick would be a map the picking clan had just lost, now how likely is that?

#3 2006-11-27 02:04 by Term (85.226.178.XXX)

The actuall "decider" will still be the third map, i think that was Puritys main concern.

I see no point in playing the same third and fourth map when it's probably not needed. It's like life support for a team that does not deserves it, they will still probably loose the match anyway. It's boring to spectate the same map twice in a row as well, makes me quits for sure and as long as these rules are fair they should be made for the spectators as well.

#4 2006-11-27 02:56 by plast (83.13.196.XXX)

this is weird but i agree with jkova's post above.

and actually i miss the old-and-good 3x the same map style, i mean when in regular season team A picks mapX, team B picks mapX too, and when it's 1:1 the decider is mapX again unless both teams agree on something different, that was cool and who cares about the spectators anyway, rules should be as simple as possible, no mapX if (mapY || mapZ) && mapZ rules plz, it's qw4fun not quakeC.

#5 2006-11-27 11:41 by ^ slabi (83.30.175.XXX)

Exactly rules sux i play for fun and cus of them i cant play what map i want ? pff
Rules are like law in most cases shitty and fallowed blindly ;)

#6 2006-11-27 14:27 by HighlandeR (150.254.194.XXX)

#1 seems dull for me too, i like plain and simple solutions like #2
#5: if you wanna play any map you want, play prac games :D
#4: playing 3x same map is WRONG and should be banned for life

#7 2006-11-27 16:06 by plast (83.13.196.XXX)

why?

#8 2006-11-27 17:10 by Term (85.226.178.XXX)

3x the same map means you can win a whole match and still loose 2 of 3 different maps, that is not acceptable, I withdraw that suggestion :).

The 1-2-3-3-X suggestion might be easy but I still don't like it, I see absolutely no point in not playing 1-2-3-X-3 instead, I'll try to rewite it.

#9 2006-11-27 17:53 by HighlandeR (83.20.154.XXX)

changing order of maps to avoid playing map twice in a row may coz you lose 3-1 instead of 3-2 and i belive some clans may find it as important difference.

plast: it sucks to watch clans play 1 map 3 times in a row having 3 maps in the pool.

#10 2006-11-27 18:44 by niomic (62.78.233.XXX)

#9 Which is more important?
- Having more high level games being played because rules aren't too strict or
- Having more spectators

I'm not saying that these have any kind of direct connection, but they might as well concerning the tone of this discussion.

#11 2006-11-27 18:47 by plast (83.13.196.XXX)

so it's all about the spectators again? why should rules be written for spectators not for players in the first place?

anyway i'm both player and spectator and if i must choose between spectating 3 tight maps on which both teams feel good and comfortable or 1 tight map plus 2 sad maps where the scores are 300:50 on map2 and 50:300 on map3 cause teamA is much better than teamB at map2 but much worse at map3 then i prefer the 3x the same map, will be more fun for me and for the players

#12 2006-11-27 19:03 by HighlandeR (83.20.154.XXX)

plast, if teamA owns teamB on map2 and map3 then you might be more then sure they'll chose one of these maps instead of strugling with teamB 3x on map1 :D
and it has nothing to do with spectacularity of the game.

niomic: the only concern i have is not to see 3x same map.
i dont buy the bullshit with low level games due to forceing clans to play on whole 3 maps. This game is 10 years old, i'm sure each clan even in div5 has a decent idea about how to play all of them.

#13 2006-11-27 20:00 by plast (83.13.196.XXX)

high: you can't be sure of that cause you assume that they _know_, and most teams don't play pracs in best lineups everyday vs each other so they simply can't have such knowledge

also if you force both teams to play the map they don't like/can't play well (and current rules DO force to play 3rd map if it's 1:1) that will be neither fun for these teams nor for spectators... so why should rules force that?

#14 2006-11-27 21:28 by Term (85.226.178.XXX)

The following simple rules will allow 1-2-3-X-3 but not 1-2-3-3-X:

Teams may:
* use "/cmd rnd" to decide who picks the first map.
* give the opponent the right to pick a map before you, the favour may not be returned.

Teams may NOT:
* pick the third map in a TB3 division.
* pick the same map as the previous one.
* pick a map that have been played twice in a TB3 divison or once before in a 5 map division.

Anyone can follow this! ;)

#15 2006-11-28 00:31 by JKova (80.221.17.XXX)

I fail to understand how it is so obvious to you Term that winning a map once means you will win it again when it's played next.

In playoffs, the clans facing each other should be roughly equal when it comes to skill. Otherwise, there obviously is something wrong with the league structure. This probably means that most of the maps are tight when it comes to frag difference, and this leaves room for surprises.

Take a look on the div2 Zoo-Free games for example (or, basically any league playoff in the history). Just two days earlier, in the group stage, we lost 1-2, losing e1m2 and dm3. In the semifinal, we won e1m2 and Free won the first dm3 but not the second. Was the 3rd map (e1m2) the decider there, as you and Purity argue? No, the second dm3 was. This is what happens with playoff games. Every map and every round is different.

Everyone knows that there are good days and bad days when playing. The whole idea behind best of 5 games in playoff games is to live by the moment - when the game is underway and you notice that the opponent isn't as strong in one map as they used to have been, or should be, you take advantage of this. That is also why you should be allowed to change your "home map" in the middle of everything.

You mention it being "life support" to choose the same map in a row after round 3, but doesn't that just show that things don't always go as expected - otherwise the team would've chosen the map they lost map as their pick in the first place.

#16 2006-11-28 00:34 by JKova (80.221.17.XXX)

hmm, let me rephrase the last paragraph. Damn beer.

--

You mention it being "life support" to choose the same map in a row after round 3, but doesn't that just show that things don't always go as expected - otherwise the team WOULD NOT HAVE chosen the map (they lost) as their pick in the first place.

#17 2006-11-28 00:49 by Term (85.226.178.XXX)

Maybe you can rewrite ur whole post tomorrow when your sober, I don't see a single point in or with it. What I ment was life support to someone who's already dead but that's not really important.

Puritys concern is that a team will pick the last map, ie it's not a real decider. Mine is that there is absolutely no point in playing two maps in a row, nothing else.

#18 2006-11-28 01:24 by niomic (62.78.233.XXX)

Term,

Despity JKova stating he had had a beer, he still had some valid points if you care to read them.

Could you please tell my _why_ there is no point in playing the same map twice in a row? How is it that clans praccing can win the same map 50/50, but somehow that couldn't happen in an official match?

Hell, most sports have been playing the same goddamn map for > 100 years :) And we're still watching god damnit.

#19 2006-11-28 01:27 by Term (85.226.178.XXX)

ok, an example probably not too far from a common reallity:

teamA-teamB
dm2: 200-100
dm3: 200-100
e1m2: 100-150
e1m2: 100-150 <- why play this map at all?
dm2: 200-100

I see no point at all in playing that second e1m2 in a row. It is might be more interesting to watch the two teams prac on e1m2 after teamA already have won 3-1.

teamA-teamB
dm2: 200-100
dm3: 200-100
e1m2: 100-150
dm2: 150-200 <- now this will make next map interesting!
e1m2: 100-150

I fail to see what your match vs free has to do with anything here, you did not play a map twice in a row.

#20 2006-11-28 08:12 by Hooraytio (212.214.218.XXX)

how can teamB all of a sudden win dm2 when teamA couldnt win e1m2? just because the 2 dm2s where not played in a row? ;)

#21 2006-11-28 09:47 by niomic (62.78.233.XXX)

Hooraytio, you answered your own question - since they weren't played back-to-back they are much more valuable and really different games, and best of all, better for the specs! Why is you so stupadh :(

#22 2006-11-28 10:00 by HighlandeR (150.254.194.XXX)

dm2: 200-100
dm3: 200-100
e1m2: 100-150
e1m2: 100-150 <- why play this map at all?
dm2: 200-100

why play 2nd dm2 at all ? :D
if you see no point in 2nd e1m2 how come there is a point in 2nd dm2.
first of it doesnt happen that you have same scores twice, each game is different. Otherwise there would be no point in playing bo5 at all.
also i dont find it as a problem that one map is played twice in a row.
It's not that much of an issue to complex the rules, and possible take away a chance for a clan to play this map at all and thus change the final scores (3-1 intead of 3-2)

playing all games at one map is dull, but this case really isnt that much of a problem.

#23 2006-11-28 10:11 by Term (213.50.38.XXX)

#22 It's the order I have a problem with, a team have to win 2 different maps to win a match. It's not too exiting to watch the fourth e1m2 if you know that they will loose the last map anyhow, let me give u another example that might be valid in a not so close playoff:

teamA - teamB
dm2: 300-50
dm3: 250-100
e1m2: 100-125
e1m2: 100-125
dm2: 300-50

If you still don't get it then lets drop it, instead give me a good argument that you should be allowed to play two map in a row. I think the rule I suggested was quite easy to follow so I need another argument then it beeing quakeC.

#24 2006-11-28 14:14 by HighlandeR (150.254.194.XXX)

term, you're makeing an assumption that team that won map1 will win map1 again and team that lost map2/3 will lose it as well. farther more you assume that the game on each map will be identical and thus boreing. In that case there's no point in bo5 at all.

anything can happen, and watching twice same map doesnt mean you'll see twice same show.

you want to change the order of maps being played only because you find it to be dull to watch same map twice in a row, even tho you have quite important argument against: changeing map order may change the outcome of whole game as team that's leading 2-1 is playing it's map first and thus can end the whole game in 4th round makeing it 3-1 instead of 3-2

it's a different situation whether you're playing yours or opponents map for staying in the game - it does affect your play.

it's much more comfortable to play your own map for staying in the game and then do you're best in the deciding round.
You're takeing that away by finding it dull.

imo, you should give *us* (as most of readers disagree about it with you) more valueable argument for this change.

#25 2006-11-28 15:06 by plast (83.13.196.XXX)

"instead give me a good argument that you should be allowed to play two map in a row"

it's fun for me (and i frankly don't care if it's or isn't fun for spectators) to try (pick one):
a) to win the map i've just lost by several frags,
b) to win again the map i've just won by several frags.

fair enough?

now give me a good reason that you shouldn't be allowed to play two map in a row

#26 2006-11-28 16:00 by Term (85.226.178.XXX)

#24 I think we won't agree on this, the difference of opinion seems to be that I don't think it matters if the match ends 3-1 or 3-2, while you do. In the regular season it matters but when you eliminate a team in the playoff I find it very uninteresting if teamB win 1 or 2 e1m2 when they will get raped for sure on all dm2 and dm3. If they have a chance to win dm2 or dm3 then why not play it right away, that's my pov.

#27 2006-11-28 16:53 by HighlandeR (150.254.194.XXX)

i suggest a poll then.

ps.
perhpas a totally different approach for tb3 divs.
what if playoffs where best of 3 matches instead, each of them being best of 3 maps.

sort of NBA/NHL style.
season last much longer tho (is it bad?)

#28 2006-11-28 20:16 by plast (83.13.196.XXX)

pools @ eql site sux :)

look at the current pool, you got 3 obvious propositions which have been exploited in previous eqls/nqrs but you dont have any new proposition, for example '3 maps per game, map won == point gained', simple 'something else' as an option in pool just sux cause people are too lazy to invent/discuss, they want to have plain and simple choices to make

#29 2006-11-28 20:28 by HighlandeR (83.20.249.XXX)

the poll doesnt have new weird solutions, coz the intension of the poll was to check which point systems used in previous competitions worked best :D

the idea of 3 maps to play, 1 point each seems interesting tho

#30 2006-11-28 21:28 by plast (83.13.196.XXX)

it's not only interesting, it's also most fair

but it got no chances cause current rules are made for inactive players/spectators, inactive player can't find additional 20 min per game and spectators might become bored if forced to watch 3 maps instead of 2+decider! :)

ridiculous but real

#31 2006-11-28 22:03 by JKova (80.221.17.XXX)

Term

TeamA-TeamB

dm2 (A pick) 250-225
dm3 (B pick) 200-175
e1m2 100-250 (B thinks "hey they're not that good on e1m2 as we thought, let's do this again and as you can see from the first 2 maps we can stand a chance in the decider whatever they pick)
e1m2 (B pick) 225-250
dm2/dm3 (whatever) ?-? ... thriller anyway?

without the 2nd e1m2 TeamB would need to win on all three maps. With this solution they only need to win on two maps (e1m2 & whatever the decider is). If TeamA win the decider, they also have only won in two maps.

"If they have a chance to win dm2 or dm3 then why not play it right away, that's my pov."

because, with your system, TeamB would have to win dm2 AND dm3, not dm2 OR dm3.

#32 2006-11-28 22:24 by JKova (80.221.17.XXX)

and, why not dm2,dm3,e1m2,dm2/dm3,e1m2, but 2xe1m2 in a row.

at least for me winning a map boosts the performance. winning two maps in a row certainly gives you a mental grip on the opponent's testicles, which might be the deciding factor.

#33 2006-11-29 01:54 by niomic (62.78.233.XXX)

Term,

Counter-argument #1 USSR-LS semi-final eql4 >;)

I don't know what games you are watching but _most_ higher div finals are (as they should be) pretty tight and the maps can usually go one way or another.

If I take the pov of a spectater I would rather watch high quality gaming than have all maps different from the previous. And I certainly remember watching some very exciting 3xdm2 and 5xdm3 matches in the past. And the reason is that I enjoy watching great individual skills, refined team work, takeovers, comebacks and some srluck. These have very little to do with what map is played. Of course I have a preference on what map I like to play and watch (depending on teams). But like in any other sport I follow, it's not the field / court / ring that matters (well except that ufc octagon is better than pride square :)

Term, either get someone to back you up and/or come up with something that the other 4 active participants can't shoot down and collectively agree on. I can't believe that you would be such a narrow-minded absolutist that you could not give up this "no same map twice in a row" view if and when you are faced with good counter arguments.

#34 2006-11-29 13:04 by Term (85.226.178.XXX)

#31 teamB can pick e1m2 again, ie they can win e1m2,dm2ORdm3,e1m2 = 3 maps.

#33 too much bs in ur "arguments", the quality of the match will not change from div1 to div5 just because they play the two last maps in a different order.

Like I said, I will make a poll about this and atm I have 3 alternatives:

1-2-3-X-Y (X != 3, X != Y)
1-2-3-X-Y (X != Y)
1-2-1-2-3

None of these allows a map 3 times, that we simply can't live with. Anyone else that have a different alternative?

#35 2006-11-29 15:29 by Hooraytio (212.214.218.XXX)

niomic: you can play 10 dm2 in a row, they are still not the same game and any team could win any amount of maps (max 10) in any order.
the previous map affects the next just as much as any map would, they are not more affected just because its the same map.

#36 2006-11-29 15:36 by Hooraytio (212.214.218.XXX)

and also why do we concentrate on the spectators here? i think its way more fun to watch 5 maps EVEN THO one of the teams only win on a specific map (like 2 times on dm2) than to watch just 4 maps where they only win one dm2 and lose on 3 other maps...

besides how come its so damn fun to watch the other team win 2 times on one of the other maps since u have to win 3-0 3-2 or 3-1... in a tb3 div this means the winning team has to win 2 times on one of the maps in most cases. cuz if they didnt then we dont have this specproblem where one team only win a specific map now do we?

i know u could win on 3 diff maps but if the other team actually win a map then according to many ppl here that map is not to be played 2 times in a row...

this maybe didnt make much sense but the main point is: the spectators will get enough fun anyway even if a map is played 2 times in a row and won by the same team..

#37 2006-11-29 15:38 by Hooraytio (212.214.218.XXX)

if it is such a big problem lets play best of 3 so we dont have to see the same map twice, even if its not played in a row!

bah

#38 2006-11-29 15:45 by Hooraytio (212.214.218.XXX)

after reading it all with brain turned on, i can see that the only one here thinking that 2 maps in a row sux is term, ill just give this a rest

gl hf 8)

#39 2006-11-29 15:59 by Term (85.226.178.XXX)

What none of of you (5) seems to get is that I refer to uneven games or rapes, not tight div1-2 matches that can end up anyhow. I refere to matches where one team is clearly better at 2 of 3 maps, I don't think it matters if these games ends 3-2 or 3-1. If a rule that prevents this also means that the div1-2 playoff will contain a few maps less then maybe it's not worth it, ok.

#40 2006-11-29 16:35 by Hooraytio (212.214.218.XXX)

well if a team have that one map they are good at then why not use that as a weapon to tire their nmys before the 5th map, that would make the 5th map more exciting and maybe not end in a rape

#41 2006-11-29 16:37 by cara (193.201.17.XXX)

As there is no money in QW, you can?t possibly take into account what the spectators want. It?s the players that keeps the scene alive, not the spectators. Why fix something that isn't broken? If, let?s say, DM3 was both KOFF?s and SR?s best map. They both considered that map was their best shot at winning. Why should they be denied chosing it? Because some div3 thinks it?s boring to spectate? Give some guidelines and trust the players to make it interesting.

Conclusion: The rules aren?t there because of what spectators might or might not like. Not what admin?s find interesting or not. They are there to simply ensure that everyone playing in the league is having as much fun as possible under fair conditions. Over.

#42 2006-11-29 16:38 by niomic (62.78.233.XXX)

Term: Something else is wrong if you have that kind of rapes in PLAYOFFS. That is what we are talking about, playoff map order and picking rules.

#43 2006-11-29 17:04 by menth0l (83.145.225.XXX)

yep, rapes in playoffs would mean that the way points are awarded during the regular season is fucked up.

oh wait, it is!

#44 2006-11-29 18:20 by HighlandeR (83.20.198.XXX)

#39:
>I refer to uneven games or rapes, not tight div1-2 matches that can end up anyhow

div4 playoff sd.p vs csn was far more tight then div1 playoff sd vs koff.

whether the game is tight or not does not depend on skill of the teams itself but on the difference of their skills (not really a discovery, is it ?:D )

whatever rules you make you wont change koff vs sd into interesting tight show.

basically it's not a question of maps and the order of maps played, but the teams itself. Watching twice dm2 of ussr vs ls was far more interesting than the whole 3 maps show from div1 koff vs sd.

ps.
of course there's an options where after 3 maps played, it's spectators that vote for map 4th and later decider :D

#45 2006-11-29 20:40 by ?ke Vader (90.227.94.XXX)

"#43 2006-11-29 17:04 by menth0l (83.145.225.XXX)

yep, rapes in playoffs would mean that the way points are awarded during the regular season is fucked up.

oh wait, it is!"

Was that comment even serious? :)

#46 2006-11-30 13:52 by menth0l (83.145.225.XXX)

yes. your points system makes it possible for team A to have more points than team B even though they have less wins and more losses.

#47 2006-11-30 15:51 by Hooraytio (193.10.228.XXX)

why not take plasts suggestion about always playing 3 maps into consideration then u could win 2-1 or 3-0 and that would also motivate 1p per map won. 1p for 1-2, 2p for 2-1 and 3p for 3-0.

i think it would be fun to be able to always play 3 maps per game even though some might argue that losing 3 maps is more boring than losing 2 :P

#48 2006-11-30 23:11 by plast (83.13.196.XXX)

that would be:
a) more fun,
b) more fair,
c) something different.

but i think it ain't happening cause qw is game for inactive ppl and spectators these days ;)

#49 2006-12-25 11:04 by gLAd (81.195.211.XXX)

fuck map rules, if both teams agree

#50 2006-12-31 17:45 by peppe (89.160.10.XXX)

next season?

---

Showing Page 1 of 2
A total of 52 comments
Previous Next
Page: 1, 2

Note
On this site we log the IP of all users who post comments on matches/articles.

Code from image aboveNameComment