Draft League Rules

[Orda Khan]

The Tosa Cup should be cancelled and started again with rules in place. Rules are essential in comp tourneys. Without them you get cheap tactics by those players who never enter into the spirit of things.

I don't want Tosa to be remembered by handing the prize to a camper. Is there an arbitrator? It seems odd that nobody has questioned tactics like those used by Sabre, I've not seen him attack once.

It has to be att/def with both attacking in 3rd game, with arbitration.

I'd argue that this tourney should have more meaning than others, I would like to see fair play and sound tactics being rewarded.

[AMP]

I agree, but reputation alone hasn't been enough to deter it in the Tosa Cup.

A little different since everyone against him has to play him and no one will dodge (forfiet wins) against him because it's a tourament for prizes and not just a league match. Someone who's shady in the leagues will get hate spread about him and will have to direct challenge opponents because everyone will be avoiding him like the plague.

The Matches section was getting a bit too dense for my taste, so I broke it out into subsections to make it easier to understand. The Home/Away thing seems to negate any real disadvantage over the long term, so I removed the ELO difference bit as it seemed like excessive rulemaking.

Well the 3rd match should be played on the same map and get rid of choosing weather because it's almost negating the home/away idea, seems that way anyway. Direct challenges against opponents playing each other the first time the one who challenges someone should be the away player maybe.

The Tosa Cup should be cancelled and started again with rules in place. Rules are essential in comp tourneys. Without them you get cheap tactics by those players who never enter into the spirit of things.

I don't want Tosa to be remembered by handing the prize to a camper. Is there an arbitrator? It seems odd that nobody has questioned tactics like those used by Sabre, I've not seen him attack once.

It has to be att/def with both attacking in 3rd game, with arbitration.

I'd argue that this tourney should have more meaning than others, I would like to see fair play and sound tactics being rewarded.

What is done is done, but I agree. I would've gave a hand on rules, but sadly I wasn't paying attention at the time how the Tosa Cup was being constructed.

[TinCow]

Well the 3rd match should be played on the same map and get rid of choosing weather because it's almost negating the home/away idea, seems that way anyway. Direct challenges against opponents playing each other the first time the one who challenges someone should be the away player maybe.

To be clear, all three battles should be fought on the same map?

I really like the your direct/open challenge distinction, as that allows us to completely remove all randomization aspects from battle 3. If it is the first match between two players and it comes from a direct challenge, the challenger is the attacker in battles 1 and 3. If it is the first match between two players and it comes from an open challenge, the challenger is the defender in battles 1 and 3. Does that sound right?

I should probably also add in a rule that says the Gamemasters can modify the rules at any point, even while play is in progress, if it is felt necessary to preserve fair and honorable play.

[Hunter KIng George]

Just a suggestion maybe to solve the 3rd game att/def issue...get rid of the 3rd tiebreaker game and use a point system. Have everyone play 2 games, with each taking turns att and def. If player A wins both games he gets 3 points, player B gets 0 points for losing both games. If they both win a match each, then they get awarded 1point each. You can also implement in having the challenger being the attacker in the first match...and switching sides in the second.

[TinCow]

Just a suggestion maybe to solve the 3rd game att/def issue...get rid of the 3rd tiebreaker game and use a point system. Have everyone play 2 games, with each taking turns att and def. If player A wins both games he gets 3 points, player B gets 0 points for losing both games. If they both win a match each, then they get awarded 1point each. You can also implement in having the challenger being the attacker in the first match...and switching sides in the second.

Hmm... that is an interesting idea. We needed a tie breaker in the Tosa Cup because you can't have draws in an elimination tournament. However, that's not true in a League, a tie could very well be an acceptable result. What do other people think of this?

[edit]Actually, using that methodology, we could even make each match 4 battles, which would give greater variety in the scoring as well. With, 4-0, 3-1, and 2-2 all possibilities.

[Hunter KIng George]

Another option you can do...if you do decide to use above suggestion, is assign default maps and/or settings to be played every week or month whatever. Of course you can give the flexibility to both opposing players to agree on their own map/settings to have their matches played but if an agreement cannot be made, then the matches would need to be played on that default map and/or settings.

[AMP]

To be clear, all three battles should be fought on the same map?

I really like the your direct/open challenge distinction, as that allows us to completely remove all randomization aspects from battle 3. If it is the first match between two players and it comes from a direct challenge, the challenger is the attacker in battles 1 and 3. If it is the first match between two players and it comes from an open challenge, the challenger is the defender in battles 1 and 3. Does that sound right?

I should probably also add in a rule that says the Gamemasters can modify the rules at any point, even while play is in progress, if it is felt necessary to preserve fair and honorable play.

Yes all 3 battles on the same map, since we have home and away (attacker/defender). That's how I would do it anyway.

And that's right about what I mean with direct challenges, but with open challenges it could be either or, let the players decide. If they can't then the one who offered the challenge is defender. People shouldn't be to shy to accept challenges anyway because that's the only way to move up.

Both. Further investigation of our league utility shows that it doesn't have the flexibility we want, so we're doing a hybrid. It's a tiered league, but each tier is run as a ladder instead of a league. That way we can provide the flexibility for people to play whoever they wish, while still providing a method for keeping competition largely focused on people of the same skill level.

Regarding ELO tie breakers, our ladder system (using ELO) allows for ties, it's just that a tie doesn't change a person's ELO ranking. Is that bad?

And it's good that it's hybrid... I don't see anything really wrong with it right so far.

And best out of 3 is fine, but I wouldn't be to bothered with just 2 matches either, but it could take awhile to advance people up if everyone is 1-1 with all their opponents, but it's all good either way.

Another option you can do...if you do decide to use above suggestion, is assign default maps and/or settings to be played every week or month whatever. Of course you can give the flexibility to both opposing players to agree on their own map/settings to have their matches played but if an agreement cannot be made, then the matches would need to be played on that default map and/or settings.

This isn't a bad idea either.

[Swoosh So]

You could have the third game on a map where buildings are active and camping would put the camper at a serious disadvantage. May as well use the buildings for something.

nm dident see it was classic battles.

[00owl]

Hmm... that is an interesting idea. We needed a tie breaker in the Tosa Cup because you can't have draws in an elimination tournament. However, that's not true in a League, a tie could very well be an acceptable result. What do other people think of this?

[edit]Actually, using that methodology, we could even make each match 4 battles, which would give greater variety in the scoring as well. With, 4-0, 3-1, and 2-2 all possibilities.

So, is this a league or a ladder? Because if we are using ELO (ala ladder) then we will need a tie breaker.

[TinCow]

So, is this a league or a ladder? Because if we are using ELO (ala ladder) then we will need a tie breaker.

Both. Further investigation of our league utility shows that it doesn't have the flexibility we want, so we're doing a hybrid. It's a tiered league, but each tier is run as a ladder instead of a league. That way we can provide the flexibility for people to play whoever they wish, while still providing a method for keeping competition largely focused on people of the same skill level.

Regarding ELO tie breakers, our ladder system (using ELO) allows for ties, it's just that a tie doesn't change a person's ELO ranking. Is that bad?

[00owl]

Both. Further investigation of our league utility shows that it doesn't have the flexibility we want, so we're doing a hybrid. It's a tiered league, but each tier is run as a ladder instead of a league. That way we can provide the flexibility for people to play whoever they wish, while still providing a method for keeping competition largely focused on people of the same skill level.

Regarding ELO tie breakers, our ladder system (using ELO) allows for ties, it's just that a tie doesn't change a person's ELO ranking. Is that bad?

No I guess the tie thing should work just fine. Didn't realize it allowed for ties.