28 replies to this topic

[Brother Envelope]

Looking to play this 2 Dec @ 9pm GMT.

Our choice = Habs Ablaze - C&C - FFA - FF off

[REAPER xDAx]

Looking to play this 2 Dec @ 9pm GMT.

Our choice = Habs Ablaze - C&C - FFA - FF off

That you for posting this and I will get Romulous to post our game type soon.

[Master Romulous]

Sorry was at the ER with my gal today,

CTF-Habs Ablaze-FFA-FF on

[REAPER xDAx]

Good luck to both teams.

[Master Romulous]

Wolves what are you putting the respawn timer at? Someone told me it was quite low in one of your games.

[Brother Envelope]

Wolves what are you putting the respawn timer at? Someone told me it was quite low in one of your games.

Not changed/altered the default timer setting, for our matches.

[REAPER xDAx]

Are you okay with space wolves hosting C&C and the Dark Angels hosting the CTF game.

[Batman2213]

Are you okay with space wolves hosting C&C and the Dark Angels hosting the CTF game.

That should be a standard part of the rules if I'm not mistaken.

[REAPER xDAx]

Are you okay with space wolves hosting C&C and the Dark Angels hosting the CTF game.

That should be a standard part of the rules if I'm not mistaken.

I am not sure because we have not always done it that way. I will look up that rule and thank you for bringing that to my attention Batman.

[skotten]

In light of recent events a change needs to applied to tournament rules. Though it may be too late for this to be done with the current DLC tournament, it should most definitely be implemented for any future tournaments on Space Marine or indeed any other current or future games.

The rule in question is selecting the number of players for the games, last night the Space Wolves were scheduled to play the Dark Angels for the first slot in the DLC final. Space Wolves had a full team of eight prepped and ready to go, the Dark Angels however stated they would only play 5-5.

It was explained that this was a purely tactical choice rather than lack of available players.

I feel that this must be rectified to no longer allow teams to do this as it is one of the quickest ways to build up bad blood and resentment in the community.

As anyone who has organised a match before knows that it takes a bit of work to select your team, make sure everyone is there on time, and has trained for the game, never more so than in tournaments.

To have eight people excited and ready to play and then have to turn around and inform 3 of them that they are no longer required, also has the potential to cause disappointment, and strife within the chapter, not to mention all the preparation done to play a full team, being thrown out the window due to no fault of your own. It also buts people off balance and can have a negative impact on, not only the enjoyment of the contest, but also their performance that day and their continued interest in the game.

It also removes yet another variable allowing complaints of unfair play, finding loopholes, and creating bitterness within the community.

I propose that along with map, game-type, and so on being selected by each team, at the time of arranging the match, that the maximum number of players is also done for each individual team at the same time. The minimum should remain at 5, and if a team is unable to meet with the previously specified number of players, they must then play with however many they can, or choose to forfeit the game.

In addition, no player may join a game once it has been started, regardless if their team is short of players.

I believe this rule is viable for the current games played and also for any future titles coming, and can add another degree of tactical planning, without it causing any resentment by having things sprung at the last minute.

[CruciasNZ]

I've spent a bit of time considering your request Skotten and would propose the following patch which WOULD apply to the current tournament because they are based in common sense; basically I am just putting things on paper to make them clear. However because it has to be stated in response to occurred events, it will only count from now on.

• All games are by standard the maximum limiting number of possible players while maintaining even teams
• Teams can elect to restrict players on their chosen game in any given round (3 day rule)
• Teams must state in advance if they are aware they cannot field the expected number (3 day rule)
• Should a team unexpectedly be unable to field agreed numbers, the other team has the right to request a raincheck if time remains in the cycle.
  
  • Unavoidable or unforeseeable circumstances should not harm a team and a reduced game should be played - The team receiving the apologies decides what is acceptable to them
  • Should a team reject the reasons provided for decreased play, they can refuse the game/s and the outcome is decided by tournament organizers following brief consultation - if you pick this route both teams knowingly forfeit the right to complain if you are decided against. Breach of this clause leads to instant disqualification (level appeals do not count as complaints, this refers specifically to drama)
• Once a game starts combatants are fixed
• Should someone "drop in" without invitation combat must cease
• Combatants may swap in/out between games in each round

[skotten]

•Should someone "drop in" without invitation combat must cease.

This should perhaps be adjusted to - should the player remain in the game, regardless of actually playing,(as it has been commented that sometimes an extra player will "follow" a team-mate and call out warnings) that team forfeits the game. This would avoid the potential throwing, of forcing a restart to a game by having someone jump in, and the guaranteed shit-storm that would follow.

All team leaders should be able to control who is in the game, and should a member join late be responsible for them to leave straight away.

Also while i fully understand the reasoning for allowing unexpected events to cause a team not to be able to field the expected number of players, i still see the potential "abuse" of this cropping up.

Would it be feasable to have that for each scheduled game, each team may call ONCE a postponement due to not being able to have the required number of players. For example this round the Space wolves are scheduled to play the Dark Angels, Wolves call teams of 8 for their game, DA's are unable to field a full team and call for a re-scheduling. The DA's can now NOT do this again on any of the three games of this round, and must either play with the correct numbers, with what ever they have available, or forfeit on the next attempt, Space Wolves may also call for a re-scheduling the second time, but then both teams must play the third time.

This is fair for both teams, as though one team may have issues getting the required numbers ready, it shouldn't also affect the opposing team's plans and organisation, and also means that an cycle of tried and failed attempts at playing is restricted to three attempts.

Only then, if a result is still lacking, should the burden of deciding go to the organisers of the competition.

[CruciasNZ]

The problem with people being able to choose to reschedule is that it can elongate the tournament horrendously. It should always be considered a last resort; also rounds are 2 weeks long if you schedule for the first weekend, you have a second weekend to fallback on without having to involve the organizers or delay others. Should a postponement occur at the end of the round on a critical path then Organizers must be involved.

Critical path here means a round whose elongation would delay any other game - right now the DAvSW round cannot delay other games, so isn't critical. Therefore Organizers have to be made aware of the reschedule as a courtesy, and will automatically allow it. Reschedules on the Critical Path will be only by permission of Organizers, who may deny it for the greater good on their best judgement.

For "unexpected reductions/delays" if the other team does not accept them then it goes to Organizers who will objectively review it. If an Organizer has bias (REAPER and DA games) then another one will review it. It should be pretty fucking obvious what'll constitute reasonable and unreasonable excuses for reductions/delays when reviewed by Organizers. However I would expect the presence and knowledge of this "procedure" to eliminate shady dealings.

By "combat must cease" I meant the whole round because I know all to well how "unbiased" observers can be /roll-eyes (they can also "accidentally intercept" Plasma Cannon blasts). I too can forsee people abusing the drop-in rules; even individuals external to the game that have no honor could do it for shits and giggles. We (GWRS) don't referee games, so as long as there is communication between both Team 'Leaders' (for that game) then Staff will not have to be involved and these issues can be dealt with. Consider that section a guideline, but open to mutual interpretation - up until the point you involve Organizers.

Again good communication can handle these unexpected drop-in/outs. Proving malicious intent is next to impossible, so we'll just base it off the idea that if a loosing team gets reinforcements then it's automatically suspicious but will be forgiven the first time. If it happens again (across tournaments, not just the single one) we'll have to revisit this.

Reasoning alright to you all? While we have to ensure it's both fair and practical, you all have to play by them, so getting the rules right is important!

[skotten]

trial and error seems to be key to it yes and addressing points as they appear. The rules developing are getting fairly solid now and are defintley viable for other titles as well.

It seems a major point has been addressed now, and hopefully the points raised will mean people no longer have to be subjected to this "loophole"

[Batman2213]

I believe it is common knowledge that my chapter is low in numbers, and struggles at all times to field a full team. I am concerned because, based on my interpretation of this new rule, an opposing team could demand that their round be played 8v8, and if I am unable to field the required number of player they can basically say "tough shit" and force me to play short-handed. Although I am certain that is NOT the intent of the proposed rule, that is also a potential for abuse.

Like you, I want to be able to bring a full team if possible, else as many players as I can. However, knowing the limitations of my chapter, I am most likely going to be forced to declare that I will bring the minimum required players (5) for each match. Suppose I get lucky and have a 6th player available? Now I have to turn them away because you forced me to announce a self-imposed restriction.This blade cuts both ways I'm afraid.

You may think it "dishonorable", but my chapter discussed the advantages of forcing the opponent to play with less than a full size squad prior to our match with the Dark Angels. As underhanded as this may seem; we knew we'd have a hard time fielding eight players, and figured it would throw them off their game a bit if they were planning to field eight and we only brought six. It turned out, due to the untimely departure of some of our more active members, that we couldn't even bring six when the time came, we had to make do with five.

For a large chapter with a large pool of talented players, it makes sense that you would plan and practice with the intent of playing an 8v8 match. Considering how much smaller my pool of manpower is, I don't think it unreasonable to pull out all the stops and do whatever I can to disrupt your plans. I don't have access to the resources you do, so I may have to be "tricky" in order to compete.

Having said that, I think you raise some valid concerns about the bad blood and animosity that can come from this "strategy". I just think that the proposed solution needs to be tweaked a bit, right now it provides significant advantage for larger chapters, which already have an advantage due to their larger pool of players. When you field a team of 8, they are (I assume) your best. If your chapter is 40 players or more, presumably they are your top 20%. In contrast, my roster is currently 19, and realistically I have less than half that many players I can count as active. Even if I can field a full squad of 8 (which I can't), that 8 would include my BOTTOM 20%, because I have to sc*CENSORED* the bottom of the barrel in order to get a full squad.

There's a saying you may have heard before: The first casualty of any battle is THE PLAN. I think you guys are skilled enough and adaptable enough to compete even in the face of "underhanded" tricks like the one we are discussing. I believe in my guys, but we will NOT be able to compete against teams that force us into and 8v5 battle. Personally, I think THAT situation is far more unfair that what you are dealing with.

I'm not trying to start a fight, just trying to give you guys some perspective.

[skotten]

Perhaps some regulation in regard to number of active members is the key, however, if it is agreed upon within the 3 day cut off time then i think most chapters would be willing to accomodate. And if not an appeal to the organisers would most certainly go in the favour that both teams need to accept that.

One of the big issues is the dissapointment that three players from the team expecting to field 8 have to deal with, if this happens too often the lose intrest in either their chapter or in the game altogether. so while you have a point that smaller chapters may need to restrict themselves to 5v5 games there is no reason this need to come about as the game is being set up.

as for a 6th player turning up, say you do get a 6th player turning up just before the game starts, talk to the opposing team and see if they can get a 6th and are willing to shuffle things. Otherwise is is unreasonable in the extreme to expect other teams to suddenly have to take away players, or in the example you have chosen have to pull in extra players to suit your numbers.

Regardless of chapter size it can be an advantage fielding a smaller team, during this current tournament the wolves have been trying to involve as many players as possible, yes when we know we are facing a tough team we will bring in the better players, or play the first game with some newer people and judge the level of the opposition, as was the intention of involving as many as possible in this tournament.

The biggest point here is not whether a team can adapt to the sudden change in numbers, but more that it screws around with people too much, as i have said before people get pissed off when they suddenly are told "thanks for stopping by now kindly leave" and the resentment build both between chapter and internally, trust me the wolves just went through some shit like that so this will help prevent other having the same problem.

And i can promise that if any chapter announces they can only manage 5v5 at the point of arranging the matches, the wolves will accept this, and should you have an extra player or two turn up unexpectedly then swap out people between games.

[Batman2213]

Good enough for me Skotten. I wasn't suggesting you and yours would take advantage... just pointing out that it COULD happen, and I'd have a much harder time overcoming that situation than you would overcoming the other one.

As you said, the greater issue you are addressing is player satisfaction. I respect and support that.

[Master Romulous]

So since when have rules been made and applied mid-tourney and by the same right, what if only 5 of my DA or 6 decide to get on, on said date due to whatever (real life and or otherwise). If I want to be technical about it, you cant force a team to play with 8 if they do not have 8 on, either from me having them all appear offline or telling them not to log onto xbox live on said time and date. This rule could be abused, not that it would hurt my chapter because it is one of the largest but as per smaller chapters it could.

Second, I have fought chapters before whom have purposely brought less than what they had because it played into there tactics (either they knew the overall skill level of my 8 was higher than there 8 so they played to there strengths with fielding a smaller amount of members but above the minimum of 5 members or that they didn't want to field there scouts), Its been part of the game for a while now, neither of my tourney games thus far have been 8v8's whist we brought 8 sons of the Lion to each match. I never received an "exact" amount warning on what my opponent was fielding. I was not bothered by it either as we quickly change our strategy before the fight and go into it, its part of the game.

Making a special case out of this one situation while it has happened in the past and applying before the tournament has ended or thus before my game set with the wolves is finished is a bit unfair I believe.

The rules stated I just needed to have 5... I broke no rules... Strategy is strategy....

[skotten]

I was informed that the match had been re-scheduled to the 16th because of what happened last night, and it is due to the events of the game you had planned for last night when you met with 5 players only that this has now come up, therefore your statement that you bring 8 players to the game is incorrect.

Your reasons given yesterday were that the tactic had been used against you, as batman explained above it was due to lack of numbers he tried to even the field slightly, something envelope concurred was reasonable for smaller chapters, the DA's as you say have a wealth of numbers and your grounds were you had concerns of facing an all VL team... nevr happened and never will.

It is also my understanding, and envelope is also under the impression, that 8v8 has been agreed upon for next attempt at playing this round, is this the case or not? If so i fail to see your grounds for complaint at the moment ?

However the rules have been implemented now, and again i must re-instate that this has absolutely nothing to do with not being able to handle having random events be the cause of playing with less than a full team, but the frustration and irritation in preping a full team, specially when you know you are playing one of the biggest chapters in the community to have them, and lets be honest, come with flimsy reasons as to why they are, not unable, but unwilling to field a full 8 man team.

And we can all see now the friction such tactics create, by the development of this thread...

[CotW]

And with that the drama clock gets set back to zero days since last incident...