| Author |
Message |
|
|
There is another problem: the winner of matches, where none of the opponent's bases were captured, is the player, who has more units killed. This could lead to the situation, that the player, who does the last turn before the end of the tournament wins, as the opponent isn't able to react. So the outcome of these matches might not reflect the true situation at the end.
|
|
|
|
...ah, and if the time budget is used, the player has lost. no prolongation...
|
|
|
|
simsverd, I disagree. There might be some misunderstanding somewhere. Let me clarify: The time budget for each player is defined per match. So the maximal time to finish a stage of a tournament is defined, too, no match can "go on for months". For me this looks compatible to the tournament system. Of course it is possible, that matches end early, but this can happen now, too. And this is no problem for the tournament "system" per se.
|
|
|
1. Given the current regulation, in my opinion autoskip would be a great improvment.
2. With regard to chess-like time-management: I really cannot recognize any disadvantages. What do You mean by "stability of the system", simsverd? It's fair, same procedure for every player, fixed rules, tournaments remain automatic, no need for the admin to interfere manually (which might be problematic as it might turn out to be an advantage for one player and a disadvantage for the other).
|
|
|
|
In my opinion, chess-like time control seems to be the best solution. For example, if a tournament should last not longer than 10 days, each player gets 120h time. Simsverd, Your argument with the different time zones doesn't convince me as both players have the same capabilities.
|
|
|
In the matches against Sdrawde we finally came to a decisison: We met this evening and continued to play at a rate of 10 minutes per turn for the 2 matches, with Sdrawde emerging as winner. Congratulation! And thanks for the thrilling games, and all that adrenaline... 
|
|
|
|
Sorry for waiting, Sdrawde! Game is open now.
|
|
|
|
BloodyHarry 2593
|
|
|
group a:
bloodyharry red titans wins vs. wolfcat blue sapiens rd 19
wolfcat red titans wins vs bloodyharry blue sapiens rd 21
|
|
|
|
cytivrat wrote:
It is not the rule which causes the problem - it is the problem in understanding this rule. it should be explained in clear way which removes any possibility for different understanding.
exactly!
in my opinion the 5-turn-rule maybe useful, depending on the map. in the tournament's map i think the rule isn't necessary, as defence normally collapses rather fast after losing one base.
|
|
|
|
EvCatz wrote: I was under the impression that the rule was in effect for me the entire time; I don't see why I shouldn't have, and it's still difficult for me to comprehend how BloodyHarry thought it was not. My line of thinking was that as long as I did not let BloodyHarry recapture a base in the game I was winning, there was no possible way for him to win the series (my win would certainly come faster). This affected the way I played both games. Different winning requirements will always have an effect on someone's strategy. In my opinion, the fact that BloodyHarry also did not react to my attack at all (he built nothing round 1 and continued to capture his base anyways even though he had vision of my marine not capturing my own base) means he can't even claim the attack was unfair (he claimed it was fair only because the map was mirrored). If BloodyHarry was in my position, I have no doubt in my mind that he would be baffled by the same opinions that he is claiming right now. I'm trying my best to not come off as rude but I felt insulted. Dan was also correct in his assumption that I would win faster when disregarding the 5-turn rule. I won on move 12 and he won on move 14.
evcatz, i don't think that i gave you any reason to feel insulted. if so, i'm sorry. it wasn't my intention.
just to clarify: i never said or meant the map is unfair. in fact, i like the map. i played the matches factoring in the rules as i had understood them. frankly, i'm still quite surprised about the fact, that my interpretation of "enemy base" isn't shared by everyone.
but i definitely don't assume any malicious intent. i believe you if you claim, you played the match assuming your interpretation was the right one. however, i clearly refuse your assumption, that, if i'd have been in your position, i'd see things in your way. absolutely not! and the fact, that you would have won without the 5-turn-rule is correct, but doesn't matter at all, as the rule definitely exists for this tournament.
|
|
|
dan, unless it's a very low income match, it's always a desaster to lose a base. so there wouldn't be any change in strategy, i believe.
cytivrat's proposal is simple and makes sense.
in the first match against evcatz he captured "my" neutral base after only a few turns. i was defeated in turn 12. the 5-turn-hold-a-captured-enemy-b ase rule in my interpretation there was not applicable. in the second match i captured one of evcatz's bases in turn 7 and held it until turn 12, which is defined as a winning condition. so i thought it's a draw.
in this case, the implementation of the cytivrat-rule would have meant an early overall decision and a only minimal chance to come back via the other match.
to summarize all: it's okay to declare evcatz as winner (both matches were absolutely thrilling and real fun). but i would prefer my enemy-base-definition for the future. in my opinion cytivrat's rule is second best. and i would not like any geographical considerations in the definition.
|
|
|
|
dan1 wrote: hi unfortunately i know the situation you are talking about. i did not see this fault in map when picking it. i always try to avoid such things in map choice.
for anyone that did not see it it was if you were blue sapien. you could not cap one of your bases and build a maurader at your bottom base. then you can stop red capping his base.
but map is mirrored so the same advantage was there for all. also in my eyes it was actually a disadvantage. i found it in one game as blue saps and did just that stopped red capping. but i felt it took me longer to win this way than just letting the cap happen. i also think played correctly you can still cap a few rounds later leaving blue a bit stretched.
okay enough of the explanation. the answer is. that base should really be yours due to the lay out of the map. so capping that base still counts as capping enemy base. if not there really really would be no point of stopping it.
sorry to all for this fault in map choice but as explained above it is still mirrored.
dan, of course i accept the decision of the jury 
but let me make following remarks:
1. the matches are mirrored, so there was no unfair advantage to any player. so i cannot see any problem with the map. evcatz was clever to see the opportunity, while i didn't.
2. nevertheless i thought an uncaptured base clearly to be neutral. of course it's evident, that the base we are talking about should under normal conditions be captured by me. but if we play on other maps, this might not be so clear. so in future tournaments it needs to be defined before the start, which bases have to be occupied by whom. i don't think that this would be a good idea. some tactical variants might be excluded. so i think it would be better to keep things simple and define enemy bases as bases which where held by the enemy for at least 1 turn.
|
|
|
|
dan1 wrote: You win a game by either complete victory where you get the victory screen OR if you take an enemy base and hold on to it for 5 rounds without losing it back or losing one of your own.
There is currently a discussion with evcatz on the definition of "enemy base", which is decisive for the result of the matches between him and me. is an enemy base a base, which has been held by the enemy for at least 1 turn? or is it a base, which is supposed to be captured by the enemy because of geographic considerations? the answer is critical for the result of our tournament matches.
|
|
|
|
dan, looking at the spreadsheet: in group A are only 4 players. Is this ok?
|
![[Search]](/templates/default/images/icon_mini_search.gif){kind=icon}
![[Recent Topics]](/templates/default/images/icon_mini_recentTopics.gif){kind=icon}
![[Login]](/templates/default/images/icon_mini_login.gif){kind=icon}
Login
