100 replies to this topic

[Lauri]

On those rare occasions when a playoff match does end in a tie, I truly believe that doing a 1v1 system as suggested here, would be a bad idea. Personally I suck at 1 vs 1 (don't get me wrong, 1 vs 3 or 4 is easymode for me ofc). But SoF is first and foremost a team game. Sure, 1 vs 1 would be fun and exciting to watch, especially as the pressure would be on at that point, but in the end the best clan and with the best teamwork should win and pure 1v1 action shouldnt be a decider.

In the past I've never had a problem with a simple rematch. But if you don't like that, there are other ways to do it.

But yeh, 1 vs 1 sucks imo.

Rematch is the best option imo, even if the first war ended in a tie. Doing another one on a later date, I mean what are the odds that 2 consecutive playoff matches will end in a draw. A good clan will show their consistency and they will perform as good as ever in each war, and therefore they deserve the win more.

Edited by Lauri, 19 July 2010 - 12:15 PM.

[luminoKo]

Pulyka to Snugg (since he's banned):

I think the 1o1 thing is a really bad idea. How do u wanna organise it, it will take hours man. The ventrillo thing with speccing u can all be in the same team and do /kill, but dont u know how boring that is? to watch 4 1o1's and do 1 urself. It proves totally NOTHING about the match. I'm more in for docs idea because 1o1 after a cupwar is just a bad idea.

penalties? super nice idea, lets take this to another level..

goalkeeper stands at the mainconf entrance and the shooter tries to make a goal with a nade

lmao!

[YoGGie]

lol your argument just supports my point. The teamwork in c4 would be of the same level of the teamwork in nC, but the individual skill would be different and if this can be proven in the 1on1's, then c4 would deserve to go through.

haha ike yea, snugg's penalties is a way better name than just penalties ;s

Are u serious? i think if nC would draw because of teamwork nC would deserve to go through and thats what i think is wrong with your idea. Overtime is the best option imo. 2x10 or 2x5 normal rules.

penalties? super nice idea, lets take this to another level..

goalkeeper stands at the mainconf entrance and the shooter tries to make a goal with a nade

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT!!!??? how come i didnt think of this. I think we got our solution guys. This is by far the best option

[Nasta]

also, what about afk'ers, time outs and stuff, time keeps on runnig you know, you cant stop that, or you would need a stopwatch too click everytime..

sorry snugg, was worth a try

[R3NZ0]

well the rules are fine it would work for sure, but keep it as a option and let the clans choose, if both agree then go for penalty's

[Jim]

I'd go for the 1x5 and the side will be chosen @ first knife round. Means winner can choose a side (red/blue) when he picks blue and it ends up in a draw the have to play the 1x5 @ blue side
so winning the kniferound will give you something extra instead of only picking side

[snugg]

Alright, the criticism has been constructive and instead of letting the time be a factor, the winning team of the knife round can choose the side/opponent/order of their 1on1's in case of a tie. It would be too complicated with afks/pauses etc

Everyone read the first post again, its a pretty solid system now.

[P4P3R]

I think you're missing the point. The most important factor is "teamwork".
1on1 is no way to decide a tied 5on5.. unless it's a tie twice.

[snugg]

Pulyka to Snugg (since he's banned):

I think the 1o1 thing is a really bad idea. How do u wanna organise it, it will take hours man. The ventrillo thing with speccing u can all be in the same team and do /kill, but dont u know how boring that is? to watch 4 1o1's and do 1 urself. It proves totally NOTHING about the match. I'm more in for docs idea because 1o1 after a cupwar is just a bad idea.



lmao!

I'm afraid pulyka totally ignored the first post, it explains and justifies all of his concerns.
1. Organising is easy, people that win the knife round can choose blue/red and their opponent.
2. Admin tells everyone that doesnt play in the 1on1 to type kill at the start of the round, else force or ban. (takes 3 seconds).
3. Isnt boring at all, because each 1on1 is decisive and vital so everyone will be like YOU GOTTA WIN THIS on vent and shit.
4. It proves which team has the highest intelligence and individual skill when teamwork after a tie has obviously been equal.

Seriously guys, you gotta try and give it a chance instead of immediately refusing to try it.

[snugg]

I think you're missing the point. The most important factor is "teamwork".
1on1 is no way to decide a tied 5on5.. unless it's a tie twice.

I get your point, youve repeated it about 4 times now. The theory behind my system is that teamwork is less important after a tie because the tie proves that teamwork was more or less equal. Therefore, it focuses more on the players WITHIN the team. It adds another dimension and more excitement to the game, while its still a fair way to settle a match. It gives everyone a fair chance to shine and be a big part in winning an extension.

[P4P3R]

And these 4 times you have yet to understand that I disagree with the entire concept of "one tie proves equal teamwork" ?
As I've stated before, I think it's too radical to decide a one-time tied 5on5 using this method.
Were it to be a tied game the second time then I'd say sure.. otherwise no.

As for trying it, we'll probably see mainly these results;
People with good individual skill, usually winning will say yes.
People who suck at 1on1s will say no.

But try it as much as you like.. it might work, it might not.. All I'm saying is that 1on1s should not be the deciding factor in 5on5 cups unless a game is tied twice imo.

Again; I disagree with the "fairness factor" here.
Let me give you a clear example;

Team cup;

avelgem vs nsz 13-13
line-ups

avelgem
Butcher, Muse, Snugg, Fastcolt and a 5th.. Koffee or smth whoever is in avelgem

nsz
Cheap, Prez, Renzo, Defqon, Joey

There is no way in hell we'd be able to win it 1on1.. I can't win vs any of those 5.. no one is able of winning vs you, Butcher, Muse and Jan would most likely win their matches too..

I don't see how this is fair.

Reminder: this is an example.

Edited by joeypapier, 19 July 2010 - 01:33 PM.

[snugg]

haha I understand you disagree with the concept, thats your personal preference and right, but you dont have to keep repeating it.

I think ive justified most of the criticism, only thing thats left is that teamwork is indeed less a deciding factor in this system. Intelligence and personal skill will be more important. Is that better or worse? no, its different and it tests a team on a variety of factors (teamwork tested in the war, intelligence+individual skill in the 1on1's), rather than just 1 thing. Nonetheless, teamwork is still the priority because the system only applies when equal teamwork has resulted in a tie in the actual war.

[snugg]

And these 4 times you have yet to understand that I disagree with the entire concept of "one tie proves equal teamwork" ?
As I've stated before, I think it's too radical to decide a one-time tied 5on5 using this method.
Were it to be a tied game the second time then I'd say sure.. otherwise no.

As for trying it, we'll probably see mainly these results;
People with good individual skill, usually winning will say yes.
People who suck at 1on1s will say no.

But try it as much as you like.. it might work, it might not.. All I'm saying is that 1on1s should not be the deciding factor in 5on5 cups unless a game is tied twice imo.

Again; I disagree with the "fairness factor" here.
Let me give you a clear example;

Team cup;

avelgem vs nsz 13-13
line-ups

avelgem
Butcher, Muse, Snugg, Fastcolt and a 5th.. Koffee or smth whoever is in avelgem

nsz
Cheap, Prez, Renzo, Defqon, Joey

There is no way in hell we'd be able to win it 1on1.. I can't win vs any of those 5.. no one is able of winning vs you, Butcher, Muse and Jan would most likely win their matches too..

I don't see how this is fair.

Reminder: this is an example.

Trust me, I suck at 1on1's and would easily lose to anyone. in 1 1on1 round, anything can happen. You just assume people with a good reputation can always win their 1on1's but thats bullshit. The odds are 50-50 even if a team like nsz plays against c4.

[P4P3R]

What I'm trying to prove is that it is LESS fair.. I guess our opinions differ rather on whether or not 1 match should be enough to prove yourself as a team/clan.

As for the reputation thing.. I'm probably "below average skilled" player regarding wars.. but if you look at 1on1 situations I'd be "epic newbie doesn't know how to make binds" level. Looking at the videos I've seen of you playing I'm fairly sure you'd still own in 1on1s.. then again that might be my misjudgement.

I for one know that nsz wouldn't stand a chance but I guess that's just me.

Edited by joeypapier, 19 July 2010 - 01:44 PM.

[ZioNi]

Like the idea, it could work.
But will everyone play? You say 1 team chooses every time which player he will go against? If Abu is in the opposite team everyone will ofcourse pick abu.. You get my drift yes

[malign]

Jeezzz, just play 2x5 :S With a 15 minute break before starting it.

[snugg]

Ok but putting our differences in opinion aside, would it be safe to conclude that it would a legit method of settling a match? Internally, it makes sense, it's logical and I can't find any ways to improve its fairness, it is pretty fair. It's not anything like a lottery, just think of it as 5 extra 1on1 situations in a regular war to settle it.

[P4P3R]

I'd say yes, it's as legit as any other method.

In my opinion what we ought to look for is which method fits best in what situation.