Home » Archived Forums » Renegade Global Community Tournament » Tournament Feedback
| Re: Tournament Feedback [message #415097 is a reply to message #414552] |
Wed, 23 December 2009 12:04   |
 |
Goztow
Messages: 9737
Registered: March 2005
Location: Belgium
Karma: 13
|
General (5 Stars)
Goztoe |
|
|
3 days ban for Hitman for disrespecting a moderator and flaming + derailing a completely interesting topic.
You can find me in The KOSs2 (TK2) discord while I'm playing. Feel free to come and say hi! TK2 discord
|
|
|
|
| Re: Tournament Feedback [message #415115 is a reply to message #414552] |
Wed, 23 December 2009 12:36 |
Tunaman
Messages: 1190
Registered: January 2005
Karma: 2
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Wait, and out of the comments made in this topic you banned Hitman? Could you please explain your logic(as to why you chose to ban him and not others)?
I don't mean to further derail the topic but that doesn't make sense to me..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Tournament Feedback [message #415141 is a reply to message #415115] |
Wed, 23 December 2009 13:59 |
|
Goztow
Messages: 9737
Registered: March 2005
Location: Belgium
Karma: 13
|
General (5 Stars)
Goztoe |
|
|
| Tunaman wrote on Wed, 23 December 2009 20:36 |
Wait, and out of the comments made in this topic you banned Hitman? Could you please explain your logic(as to why you chose to ban him and not others)?
I don't mean to further derail the topic but that doesn't make sense to me..
|
He was unlucky to be the one who put the "last drop" into the bucket. Also, he did manage to break three rules in that one post.
You can find me in The KOSs2 (TK2) discord while I'm playing. Feel free to come and say hi! TK2 discord
[Updated on: Wed, 23 December 2009 14:00] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Tournament Feedback [message #415184 is a reply to message #414552] |
Wed, 23 December 2009 17:34 |
 |
BLûεl4βêL
Messages: 178
Registered: September 2008
Location: Netherlands
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
poor hitman
...bow to your #1 ranked warrior
| Quote: |
by Whiskey @ clanwars.cc
Legend has it, that long long ago before the tiberum wars, Havoc and Sakura conceived a love child in the backseat of a GDI Hum-vee. 9 months later, IsItInYou popped out and headshot them both, then nuked their refinery.
how did the baby get a gun?! rgGh probably
so the baby spectated both his parents and drove home from the C&C_Hospital.mix in the humvee parked outside?!
3 wisemen came bearing gifts: credits, tiberium, and murr, whatever the FUCK that is. IsItInYou was nailed to the obelisk, but respawned 3 days later and performed miracles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Tournament Feedback [message #415263 is a reply to message #414552] |
Thu, 24 December 2009 02:21 |
|
|
| Tiesto wrote on Thu, 24 December 2009 00:35 |
| Tiesto wrote on Wed, 23 December 2009 15:33 |
Back on topic?
|
|
Yes!
My idea for a newer scoring system (which would've been posted earlier but the forums ate it  ) is as follows:
1) (A little unrelated to scoring, but a suggestion anyway) Why not allow any player to play for any side - but once you've played for a team, you're committed to that team for the remainder of the tourney - that way the rosters become much more flexible - it is not impossible to implement this using the serverside bots, which can qkick (As often as needed) any player trying to play for a side they're not allowed to). EG:
I'm not on the rosters, but due to a problem, TK2 are a player short - Goztow asks me to play for them, and I agree. TK2 play, say, [NE] and that way the games aren't cancelled. A little later, Jelly (No doubt hearing about my fantastic performance for TK2 (lol!)) ask me to play for them - the bots prevent me, as I've played for TK2 this "season".
I'm hoping that I can talk to Hex about having the serverside bots handle more of the scoring. 
Anyway: (My idea hinges on the pointsfix - so it would be required)
A team's total score would be tracked through the tourney - IE: TK2 (Who are being used an awful lot in my examples) win over [NE] (from earlier, probably due to me (lol!)) like this:
For each map, both teams must play as GDI and Nod, for the same reasons as in RGCT 1.
In my post, I shall refer to an individual game on a map as... (*drum roll*) a game, and a pair of games played on the same map as a "match".
Firstly, I'd like to provide a cut down, simple example as to how the scoring is tracked, and why:
Scoring example
TK2: 7500 - [NE]: 6900 (Values are completely made up, no building kills, turrets don't count).
Therefore, TK2 now have a score of 7500, and [NE] a score of 6900.
Second game between TK2 and [NE]:
TK2 wins again, but by a lesser margin, also, [NE] managed to destroy one of TK2's buildings:
TK2: 9800 - [NE]: 9400 (Killed the barracks). Now, the scores run like this:
TK2: 7500 + 9800 = +17300. No buildings killed.
[NE]: 6900 + 9400 = +16,300. 1 building killed.
The reason I'm tracking building kills is this (And I'm going to sound like Spoony): Agressive play is more important.
[NE]'s early barracks rush was probably the most exciting thing that happened all game (The rest would've been camping and "whoring" - with a great deal of back and forth by the looks of the scores)
Therefore, I suggest either a score bonus per killed building or we sort by building kills first (I prefer this option), in either case, this example leads to [NE] taking a higher place, as TK2 couldn't kill a building.
Thus the tourney/league standings:
(Rank, Name, Match Count, Total Score, Buildings Killed)
1: SoQ. Matches: 2. Points: 28,600. Buildings killed: 9. // Both by base destruction, therefore highest standing.
2: CW.cc. Matches: 2. Points: 25,900. Buildings killed: 1. // Note that Points is used to sort out who is winning when buildings killed is =.
3: [NE]. Matches: 1. Points: 16,300. Buildings killed: 1.
4: TK2. Matches: 1. Points: 17,300. Buildings killed: 0.
5: Jelly. Matches: 0. Points: 0. Builings killed: 0. // Jelly need to play! lol
6: Etc Etc.
In that example tourney table, Jelly still has two matches outstanding, and TK2 and [NE] have another one to play also.
The initial signups would be divided at random into a set of smaller leagues. Lets say that we get 12 communities:
1. CW.cc (Mr.Mom)
2. Jelly (Jelly)
3. Ex0dus (Arnyswart)
4. Shadow-Team (Adad)
5. Atomix (Xpert)
6. {Os} (Moeze)
7. The Koss2 (Goztow)
8. [NE] ([NE]Fobby[GEN])
9. Tsunami Gaming (TsuScorpio)
10. St0rm (Wilo)
11. -SoQ- (-SoQ-Warlock)
12. NamelessCommunityOne. (Generic123)
These would be randomly divided into 4 leagues of 3 communities. (Essentially, the leagues will have a small number of communities)
League one:
Communities: Jelly, CW.CC, St0rm.
League two:
Etc
The initial league stage (Essentially allowing us to get some seeding data) would consist of two maps (Probably base and non-base defence, EG: Field and Complex),
and each team in a league must play every other team in their league on both maps, IE: Jelly, CW.cc and St0rm must all play each other on both Field and Complex, as both Nod and GDI. (leads to 2*2*2 = 8 games per community initially).
After these games, we have a league standing:
League one:
(Rank, Name, Total Score, Buildings Killed)
1: CW.cc, 18,900, 4
2: Jelly, 17,600, 3
3: St0rm, 15,400, 3 // As earlier, St0rm are losing due to points, but secondarily to building kills.
Similar results from other leagues now allow us to sort by how well communities did initially:
Games played after the initial stage count towards final standings (IE, disregard the initial round socres, as they're only for getting seeding data)
League one: (Now holds the top three communities)
CW.cc, Jelly (Because they did better than others in other leagues) and SoQ.
League two: (Now holds the next three communities)
Etc etc.
For the second stage, each community must play a match against every other community in their league on both of another pair of maps. (Say, Mesa and Canyon).
At the end of the second stage, communities are again sorted by ranking, so let's say Jelly had a fail round, and go down one league:
League one:
1: SoQ, 30K+, 12
2: CW.cc, 40K+, 10 // Note CW.cc losing due to not killing more buildings.
3: NamelessCommunityOne, 29K, 10.
League two:
Jelly, 30K, 8. // Note Jelly in league two because NamelessCommunityOne went on a building killing spree last round.
Etc etc
At the end of the second stage, the bottom half of the leagues (IE, the lowest 2 leagues in this example. If we have an odd number of leagues, the smaller section is lost) are split. Thus we now have 2 leagues
of three communities each.
There is now a third stage of the same format for both leagues, leading to
League one: Jelly, CW.cc, Soq
League two: TK2, NamelessCommunityOne, St0rm => All eliminated
The fourth stage allows remaining communities to vie for 1st, 2nd and 3rd places one more time. It will be of the same format, but with no elimination - IE:
Upper set:
League one:
1: Jelly
2: CW.cc
3: Soq.
The exact size of the leagues will be determined by the number of signups.
Essentially, after the seeding stage, half the teams will be eliminated every time. Do remember that each stage is 8 games per community, so there will be plenty of Ren.
A lot of the ingame rules can be decided by community leaders, as that will be fairer.
I will also yield to TD and Mr. Mom's experience in terms of timeframes and deadlines.
Suggestions?
Renguard is a wonderful initiative
Toggle Spoiler
| BBC news, quoting... |
Supporters of Proposition 8 will argue California does not discriminate against gays, as the current law allows them to get married - as long as they wed a partner of the opposite sex.
|
| halokid wrote on Mon, 11 October 2010 08:46 |
| R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 11 October 2010 15:35 |
|
the hell is that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Tournament Feedback [message #415276 is a reply to message #415273] |
Thu, 24 December 2009 04:15 |
|
|
| surth? / surth! wrote on Thu, 24 December 2009 10:54 |
too complicated.
Truth be told, I think the first format was good enough save for the buildingpoints.
|
I agree it's complex, hence why I wanted to implement it in the severside bot so all you guys had to do was look here to see what map and community you're supposed to be playing this week.
What would you recommend in place of building points?
Renguard is a wonderful initiative
Toggle Spoiler
| BBC news, quoting... |
Supporters of Proposition 8 will argue California does not discriminate against gays, as the current law allows them to get married - as long as they wed a partner of the opposite sex.
|
| halokid wrote on Mon, 11 October 2010 08:46 |
| R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 11 October 2010 15:35 |
|
the hell is that?
|
[Updated on: Thu, 24 December 2009 04:15] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Tournament Feedback [message #415286 is a reply to message #414552] |
Thu, 24 December 2009 05:25 |
 |
Herr Surth
Messages: 1684
Registered: July 2007
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
you could also use the relative score ie
if you won the first round with 5000 to 4000 and you lost the second round with 3000 to 4000 you would lose since the other team had a higher percentage (Your win: 5/4, enemy teams win: 4/3).
This only works with one map per round obv.
[Updated on: Thu, 24 December 2009 05:32] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Tournament Feedback [message #415289 is a reply to message #414552] |
Thu, 24 December 2009 05:30 |
 |
TD
Messages: 966
Registered: May 2005
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
Id like to thank you all for the feedback so far. I agree the BP system wasn't as good as we thought it might be.
I'd say for a next RGCT there should be:
- the regular winning system (basekill > time > points)
- the pointsfix
- first to 3 wins series per round (gets you at least 3 games and 5 games max per round), where maps rotate every round so eventually every map gets played in the tournament.
- rosters of 20 by default (we started with 15), and up the max game size to 15v15.
Setting deadlines is easy, reminding the teams is easy, but it will ALWAYS happen, that matches get delayed for various reasons. I tried my best to not extend too much but at the same time also get matches done. I could have just DQ'd everyone that didn't make their deadline, but then this thread would be full of "WTF DID ANY MATCHES GET PLAYED IN THIS RGCT?" and anyone would agree that such tournament would not have been fun at all.
I agree not all rules were made entirely clear to everyone, however they were in the RGCT sticky and if a new rule was made we announced it in new topics. This forum was the medium to update you all on the situation. Maybe we should have made THAT clear first, so that everyone would check this section at least 3 times a week or so.
The tournament took a bit longer than planned, but I had fun organizing it and seeing it finish succesfully.
Keep 'em comin'
|
|
|
|
| Re: Tournament Feedback [message #415303 is a reply to message #414552] |
Thu, 24 December 2009 06:53 |
Tiesto
Messages: 600
Registered: June 2006
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
If suppose if we have a league we could just set a deadline to get all the matches done?
Then its up to communities to get the matches arranged and played..
Its the final league standing what matters..
Exodus Senior Moderator
For a commwar against Exodus, pm me.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Tournament Feedback [message #415305 is a reply to message #415303] |
Thu, 24 December 2009 06:59 |
 |
Prulez
Messages: 439
Registered: August 2005
Location: The Netherlands
Karma: 0
|
Commander |
|
|
| Tiesto wrote on Thu, 24 December 2009 14:53 |
If suppose if we have a league we could just set a deadline to get all the matches done?
Then its up to communities to get the matches arranged and played..
Its the final league standing what matters..
|
| TD wrote on Thu, 24 December 2009 13:30 |
I could have just DQ'd everyone that didn't make their deadline, but then this thread would be full of "WTF DID ANY MATCHES GET PLAYED IN THIS RGCT?" and anyone would agree that such tournament would not have been fun at all.
'
|
| nikki6ixx wrote on Fri, 08 May 2009 19:47 |
Every so often, I get this positive feeling that humanity can somehow, possibly attain pure awesomeness, and enlightenment, and that there is light at the end of the road for us all. However, I only need to go to the latest HUD thread at RenForums to remind me of how dumb I was for thinking such stupid things.
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Tournament Feedback [message #415314 is a reply to message #415305] |
Thu, 24 December 2009 08:44 |
 |
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
quick note. disallow harv blocking too.
when you use the pointsfix AND disallow harv block, then the team that wins is always, always the team that deserved to. there's been absolutely zero exceptions to that theory of mine so far.
and once you do that, then you don't have to dick around with playing maps twice, once as gdi once as nod. you can just have a variety of maps instead, because all the default maps are fair. (mesa is the exception, but fix the deadzones with the Mesa_2 file and that's fair too)
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
[Updated on: Thu, 24 December 2009 08:46] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Tournament Feedback [message #415326 is a reply to message #415318] |
Thu, 24 December 2009 09:52 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
another idea, not sure how popular it will be though... how about team size limited to 10, and let each community submit more than one team?
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Tournament Feedback [message #415337 is a reply to message #415327] |
Thu, 24 December 2009 10:49 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
yeah, but communities' signup could be like 15 players. maximum number of players in the game is 10, and if community A has 10 showing up but B only has 8, community A doesn't have to drop players.
harsh but fair imho
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Tournament Feedback [message #415604 is a reply to message #415602] |
Sat, 26 December 2009 14:47 |
blitzkey
Messages: 53
Registered: August 2009
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| Hitman wrote on Sat, 26 December 2009 15:30 |
really good ban reason, goztow
so far for being nice to u
|
off topic again, give him another 3 day ban
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Thu Nov 21 03:51:39 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01340 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
