Format is Flawed.

[[TBAG] MrFiskIt]

We had a good game against ~N~ last night and before I get into my rant - I am not having a go at ~N~ - they were definitely the superior team on the night and played a dam good game.

But I have a serious problem with the format of the comp.

At the start they said "Knife fight" - we said, "heh okay" and the outcome of that decided who defended - who attacked.

So ~N~ went on defense and proceeded to camp the shit out of the bomb sites for 12 rounds in a row.

Again - exactly what you would expect in a competitive game and they did a fucken good job of it.

The problem I have with this is that the defending team has a MASSIVE advantage because they can just sit and wait for the attacking team to turn up. Without UAV or Kill cam - we have no idea where they are - but the defending team know exactly where we are coming from and heading to.

So - ~N~ won all but one of the defending rounds which meant that when we switched we only had 1 chance at defense... then the game was over??

To be honest - the comp would be a lot fairer if the teams switched every couple of rounds.

I am not saying the outcome of our particular game would have been any different but it was really demoralizing to just get slaughtered for 13 rounds in a row and then not to get a chance to do any defending ourselves.

is there any chance this can change?

[blight]

win the knife round

[Slim]

Fisky, you're a Bf2 player and I love you. But this is what CS:S and Cod4 is all about. Its bassically who can camp the best. Its not that the format is flawed... This is the format! And I think this is why Bf2 players will never truely excel in Cod4 without completely changing their way of thinking.

[Brave Warrior]

doesn't much differ to other games though...

Previous COD SD tournaments used to play 20 rounds, with a half time switch at the completion of 10 rounds. So, effectively this meant that the first to 11 round wins is the match winner. The only difference being that all 20 rounds were played regardless and this often helped later for using the round wins and losses as a means to differentiate teams on the same amount of points at the end of round robin, etc. But ultimately, it's the same if applied here. ~N~ might have won the knife fight and gone on to win the first half 10 nil as defenders to then only require 1 round win as the attckers at half time.

So yeah, it really then does come down to being able to be the team that get's to choose which faction they start as (yeah win knife fight). Having said that, I've seen good teams with good map knowledge, dominate both factions of a map. But agree that some maps seemingly favour one side over another. Some might argue that mp_farm (downpour) is one of those maps.

*shrugs*

[elemunk]

The format is not flawed, the map is flawed, it's an abortion of a map that has been discluded from pretty much all leagues and ladders around the world.

but yeah, what blight said, win the knife round, the map does favour the defender to a ridiculous degree, but by that logic you should have rolled them when you were on defense.

[brucewillis2]

slims right its the CS COD format, we felt the pinch of it when it can down to 12-12 and instead of switching sides we stayed on the attacking side. So it's flawed (to us) in more ways than one.

This defending attacking thing is taking some getting used to and I'm not sure I'll ever really like it. Maybe sabotage it the way to go. might make things a bit more even?

SnD is silly with all the camping.

[Xt1ncT]

but yeah, what blight said, win the knife round, the map does favour the defender to a ridiculous degree, but by that logic you should have rolled them when you were on defense.But they only had one defending round, which they lost.

[prolax]

Cybergamers rules are both teams play 12 rounds of defending team and attacking team - then if the result is died there is a 3 round tie breaker.

[elemunk]

But they only had one defending round, which they lost.

By the OP's logic, is the 'easy' side (which it is) so that one round shouldn't of been lost (in theory)

It all just comes down to the map, along as hazard stays away from shipment, wet work, bloc, and any other map which has the bombsites pretty much INSIDE the defenders spawn, it will be fine.

Think about it like this, if two EVENLY skilled teams go play on downpour, the defender should win the first half by around 9 - 3 say, because of the layout of the map, its not hard to get a few rounds as attackers if you know what you are doing (Tbag got 1 round off N), teams swap, in theory because both teams are evenly skilled, the score at the end of the game should be 12 - 12.

It's easy for both teams for one half, having one 1 round left is nothing but a psychological effect.

I can understand TSW's frustrations, because thats a different matter, however, Tbag you just got beat by a better team, if the problem was as big as you think every team that attacked first would have got dicked in the comp.

[prolax]

aslong as hazard stays away from shipment, wet work, bloc, and any other map which has the bombsites pretty much INSIDE the defenders spawn, it will be fine.

vacant gets scrimmed tho?

[`Dirty Heathen]

I do agree take the 30 cal away and it would be a lot better map.

I watched your guys game last night and I have all the others.

You still can win rounds as the attacking team I have seen Z sila do it and the TSW Sila2 was close as.

The fact is the game is not flawed you guys where under prepared and playing againt a team that put a lot of prep work in they had there defense locked down.
Smoke smoke and more smoke is the key to attacking on that map.

On that map as long as you can win even 2-4 rounds attacking which is possible you can win match when you swap to defense.

I understand what you are saying dude for sure and that is one of the worst map ever for it I am sure the other maps you will find works a lot better.

[elemunk]

vacant gets scrimmed tho?

Yes vacant is classed as a scrimming map, kind of like crossfire, but not really, B on vacant is alot easier to get into than it looks.

[`Dirty Heathen]

slims right its the CS COD format, we felt the pinch of it when it can down to 12-12 and instead of switching sides we stayed on the attacking side. So it's flawed (to us) in more ways than one.

This defending attacking thing is taking some getting used to and I'm not sure I'll ever really like it. Maybe sabotage it the way to go. might make things a bit more even?

SnD is silly with all the camping.

I agree Bruce IMO if it comes to 12-12 the server should be restarted with a 5 minute time limit no bomb planting just kills team with most players still standing after 5 mintues wins no team would have an advatage as they both have to fight.


I do really think Sabotage would be a better mode to scrim I really do its a cross between Bf2 with respawning and S&D with the bomb.

[xcuzznxtimmyx]

I do really think Sabotage would be a better mode to scrim I really do its a cross between Bf2 with respawning and S&D with the bomb.

something to note for the next iconz tourney.....

[zolteg]

MrFiskIt;616822']We had a good game against ~N~ last night and before I get into my rant - I am not having a go at ~N~ - they were definitely the superior team on the night and played a dam good game.

But I have a serious problem with the format of the comp.

At the start they said "Knife fight" - we said, "heh okay" and the outcome of that decided who defended - who attacked.

So ~N~ went on defense and proceeded to camp the shit out of the bomb sites for 12 rounds in a row.

Again - exactly what you would expect in a competitive game and they did a fucken good job of it.

The problem I have with this is that the defending team has a MASSIVE advantage because they can just sit and wait for the attacking team to turn up. Without UAV or Kill cam - we have no idea where they are - but the defending team know exactly where we are coming from and heading to.

So - ~N~ won all but one of the defending rounds which meant that when we switched we only had 1 chance at defense... then the game was over??

To be honest - the comp would be a lot fairer if the teams switched every couple of rounds.

I am not saying the outcome of our particular game would have been any different but it was really demoralizing to just get slaughtered for 13 rounds in a row and then not to get a chance to do any defending ourselves.

is there any chance this can change?

G'day Fiskit. You sure you weren't playing for DD last night. That was *exactly* what happened on our game.

The GD boys had it sewn up (and bloody good on them too - they obviously put in the prep and were right on their game).

And to some degree I concur with the later comments, especially when you're talking two very highly skilled teams playing against each other - the format likely works for them. The Fixed MG's with unlimited ammo or temperature are an abomination, I gotta say.

However, I *do* think a side change at 5 or 6 rounds would even things up - it's not going to ever change a good clan pwning a lesser team because skills are skills are skills, but it would mean an even crack for the lesser team.

[solman]

The cold hard simple fact of the matter is... those that are upset about the format, are the ones that got taken to the cleaners.... For us, the biggest problem was getting past the spam cannon... it to a large extent enabled the opposition to concentrate on blocking bomb the entrances to bomb site b with one as cover for A if we managed to slip past.

All that said... at the change of side we had the "advantage" and didn't use it like they did and they beat us.
I don't think changing side earlier would've had a great difference on the outcome. yeah we would've got the opportunity to see if our defenses could have done the job... not all strats work first time, unfortunately we only got one shot at it..

GG GD, your prep obviously paid off for you

[Pawny]

Remove the implaced MG, the main flaw. Everything else is teams prep, skill and knowledge of the map at hand.

[Hazard]

Downpour was maybe the worst map I could have picked, and I'm sorry for that - it's very one sided and the choke points are crazy, throw in a mounted MG and yeeehaaaa bend over boys :P

For round 2 I will be switching to the PAM mode (all going well) and that will allow more options, such as disabling the MG, etc, etc - all things I need to work out and see if it's worth doing or not. If I can even just add a limit to how much you can fire the thing it would be ok - unlimited ammo, no overheating - just silly.

As for the format, yes even I think it's a bit odd, but that's coming from a BF2/2142 background. The format was picked as it is the standard type of format for COD competitions. I picked first to 13 as it it would make for a good length of game. First to 13 means 25 possible rounds. Yes we could play out all 25 rounds, but end of the day, once the score is 13-x then there is really no point continuing play other than for practice or warm fuzzies.

Yes it is disheartening when you get thashed on attack and don't get a real chance on defense, but as has been said, Downpour as a map really makes it worse. On a different map, the attacking team has much more of a chance. So again, my bad for picking that map :(

I will also be looking into the options with PAM for the 25th round. If teams go 12-12, then I think the 25th should be a team deathmatch with no respawn - so last man standing wins sort of thing.

For round 2 I will have things sorted out, the general structure will be the same, but some of the issues will be resolved.... and maps such as Downpour won't be picked again.

[SirGrimNZ]

The format is not flawed, the map is flawed, it's an abortion of a map that has been discluded from pretty much all leagues and ladders around the world.

but yeah, what blight said, win the knife round, the map does favour the defender to a ridiculous degree, but by that logic you should have rolled them when you were on defense.

Thank You.You see it my way.The map in question is one sided,and any team that has just a tad bit of skill can absolutely shread any opponent defending on that map.

[crazy_legs]

coming from bf2, i think it is really odd the way these comps are run.

how hard is it... really... to have 10 rounds on each side? (or does this solution just seem to make too much sense).

seems a bit rash that a whole game will often be decided on a knife fight.

Not having a go at the organisers, i know its the way it is done, i just think its stupid.

Imagine playing a bf2 spending 90% of your time on 1 team, and 10% on the other.

[The Tick]

The format is not flawed, the map is flawed, it's an abortion of a map that has been discluded from pretty much all leagues and ladders around the world.

but yeah, what blight said, win the knife round, the map does favour the defender to a ridiculous degree, but by that logic you should have rolled them when you were on defense.

I couldnt have said it better myself!

[Quadrim]

Yeah Downpour is a poor quality Scrim map to one sided..

Looking forward to any improvements that can be made to the coming rounds

[pyro]

I have never liked the 13 rounds system myself, I prefer the uk way of having only blue rounds count(attacking rounds) on a timelimit for each half. This eliminates the defense biased maps advantage of starting Defense first. But in saying that if it was so easy to defend like you said, since they just sat there and camped because they knew exactly where you were coming from how come you couldn't do the same, and win the next 12 rounds like they did.

I understand where your coming from as for the past 7 years ive been playing fps under this format in many comps with maps similar to this one, tbh its not really an advantage other than psychologically. If a map is so easily defendable to win 12 rounds on defense without a problem, you have exactly the same chance when you swap to defense.

But I still prefer the attacking rounds only setup, eliminates alot of the camping and makes for a more interesting game for both teams, spectators, admins.

[dragonNZ]

I have no prob with first to 13 but maybe it could be done 6rounds at a time..
6on Defense then 6 on Attack, 6 on Defense, 6 on Attack.. there by eliminating the pressure of having to win your next 12 rounds on D

[Vandal]

MrFiskIt;616822']We had a good game against ~N~ last night and before I get into my rant - I am not having a go at ~N~ - they were definitely the superior team on the night and played a dam good game.

But I have a serious problem with the format of the comp.

At the start they said "Knife fight" - we said, "heh okay" and the outcome of that decided who defended - who attacked.

So ~N~ went on defense and proceeded to camp the shit out of the bomb sites for 12 rounds in a row.

Again - exactly what you would expect in a competitive game and they did a fucken good job of it.

The problem I have with this is that the defending team has a MASSIVE advantage because they can just sit and wait for the attacking team to turn up. Without UAV or Kill cam - we have no idea where they are - but the defending team know exactly where we are coming from and heading to.

So - ~N~ won all but one of the defending rounds which meant that when we switched we only had 1 chance at defense... then the game was over??

To be honest - the comp would be a lot fairer if the teams switched every couple of rounds.

I am not saying the outcome of our particular game would have been any different but it was really demoralizing to just get slaughtered for 13 rounds in a row and then not to get a chance to do any defending ourselves.

is there any chance this can change?


Correct it is a one sided map, BUT you guys only played with four members the whole game. You guys won one round off us because we were one man down so i was 4v4. If you guys did have 5 members on, it could of been a different outcome.

but thanks for the game last night it was fun and it is a pitty you guys only had 4 on :(

[winfieldsaregoo]

i dont think the mg is that hard to get parst had a bit of a scrim with some random clan and you can take the guy out on it with out been seen

[Brave Warrior]

pam_allow_turrets "0"

[brucewillis2]

Cybergamers rules are both teams play 12 rounds of defending team and attacking team - then if the result is died there is a 3 round tie breaker.

I like this. I would rather lose 24-1 than 13-0 at least give people the chance to win one round. instead of ending it as soon as one team reaches the magicial number 13. also bought to you were the letters B and S

[Spork]

I think everyone is forgetting who the OP is. The raging bagger.

But yea, game flawed, we should only need 4 baggers to win, even against 10 on the other team there is no one out there capable of beating us. Must be cos I couldn't play (damn RL).*

*Was not meant as a post against ~n~ I am just being spork

[5loth]

there is nothing flawed with the 12 round halves 13 to win system.

if a team successfully defends 12-0, then wins the first round on offense, the best the 2nd team can do is defend for the next 11 rounds, which means they lose.

the overtime system however, atm is flawed, tsw were hard done by in the first round.

IMO, best way to do overtime is you swap after every round, and first to win two consecutive rounds.

[5loth]

coming from bf2, i think it is really odd the way these comps are run.

how hard is it... really... to have 10 rounds on each side? (or does this solution just seem to make too much sense).

seems a bit rash that a whole game will often be decided on a knife fight.

Not having a go at the organisers, i know its the way it is done, i just think its stupid.

Imagine playing a bf2 spending 90% of your time on 1 team, and 10% on the other.

the only advantage you get by winning the knife fight is a mental advantage, both teams still get their chance to defend (if that is the easier side on the map), and if one does it better than the other they deserve to win.

[Brave Warrior]

lol that avatar cracks me up everytime I see it... :D

[nick247]

slims right its the CS COD format, we felt the pinch of it when it can down to 12-12 and instead of switching sides we stayed on the attacking side. So it's flawed (to us) in more ways than one.
.

you guys got completely scammed, pretty much whoever got attacker for that 25th round got shafted for that match

the best way of deciding a draw is either the CS way which i believe is something like 3attack 3defense and first to 7
or
the penalty shoot out way
ie first to win two rounds with alternating between attack and defense




I will also be looking into the options with PAM for the 25th round. If teams go 12-12, then I think the 25th should be a team deathmatch with no respawn - so last man standing wins sort of thing

not a horrible idea but not a very good one either, i recommend you research how past COD tournys have done it and how CS tournys do it to point you in the right direction




seems a bit rash that a whole game will often be decided on a knife fight.

.

its not really, for instance we went into our game vs Z knowing we had to win every defence round we could to give us the fewest necessary wins as attack

so we ended up with like 10-2 i think, meaning we had to win 3 more rounds
Us being defence first gave only psycological advantage (which could be argued to be a big effect) but thats pretty much it
ie tsw vs sila2, both teams locked down the defense and as it turns out they were evenly matched, if the 25th round hadnt of messed everything up then neither team would have been negatively effected by who defended first

BUT heres the real problem and this is actually fairly significant

everyone seems to be forgeting the bonus points system!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1 for a flawless victory
1 for a close loss

HMMMMMMMMM

how many teams just lost out on bonus points because all 24 rounds were not played? and how many gained some points because of it?

hands up!

ill start: Z lost 1 bonus point, they could have easily gained 10 wins

of course theres nothing wrong with this being overlooked by the organisers im not having a go, the players and teams have all had the rules in our faces for the past weeks and none of us noticed this or any of the problems that have occured

[gliss]

So if we had of played all the rounds out we wouldve got an extra point? Also how can you play all the rounds when once 13 is reached the match stops???

[nick247]

exactly, therefore bonus points can come down to who wins a knife fight

[zolteg]

the only advantage you get by winning the knife fight is a mental advantage, both teams still get their chance to defend (if that is the easier side on the map), and if one does it better than the other they deserve to win.

Actually, no they don't. If you're dominated in the first 12 rounds you get one chance - to win at that point you have to take 13 consecutive rounds.

There's no chance to get a feel for how the other team is playing, what/who their strengths & weaknesses are, or to adapt & overcome. What would people think if 90% of a rugby game was played with one team facing into the wind, or the sun?

I don't necessarily believe we need to do 100% what tourneys overseas are doing - our market's a little different. Smaller, less range between the top and bottom. If yer serious enough about scrimming, you'll practice and adapt to the format if you scrim 'cross the ditch.

[5loth]

Actually, no they don't. If you're dominated in the first 12 rounds you get one chance - to win at that point you have to take 13 consecutive rounds.

There's no chance to get a feel for how the other team is playing, what/who their strengths & weaknesses are, or to adapt & overcome. What would people think if 90% of a rugby game was played with one team facing into the wind, or the sun?

I don't necessarily believe we need to do 100% what tourneys overseas are doing - our market's a little different. Smaller, less range between the top and bottom. If yer serious enough about scrimming, you'll practice and adapt to the format if you scrim 'cross the ditch.

each team gets one chance to defend, and one to attack.

if you defend better, then attack better than they do you deserve the win.

[=C=]

Thank You.You see it my way.The map in question is one sided,and any team that has just a tad bit of skill can absolutely shread any opponent defending on that map.

You can easily attack on that map.
It just means your team has to work together ie pushing up rather than going in 1 at a time. And yes smoke is the key to that map.

Edit: On that map no doubt that the defense side is easier to an extent. If there was no MG, then you would have the element of surprise, ie you could attack either side. But one thing i've noticed in our match vs NZR2 is that I knew they would try and get a sniper out and go for A, but I had all those covered :)

Attack works really well with your whole team pushing together and storming in after nade/smoke throws.
Once you're at silo's it's a matter of seconds before you secure B and win the round.

It's not as hard as people think, you just have to have the team to do it right.
Also PAM will definitely change a lot of aspects in this tournament.

Ie. There's no hit detection when you shoot someone through a wall and it hits. So you have no idea if it did get anyone or not. No MG's, no perks, but snipers do 1 hit kills. No plant noise, and I can't remember if there is any defuse noise. Would be great if both were off.

Can't wait for Round 2.

[Hazard]

So far only 2 bonus points have been given, 1 for the [tsw] vs sila2 match which ended 13-12 to sila2 and the other for a flawless victory by =[GD]=

I'll be taking all things into consideration before we kick off again, but I'n not going to restructure the entire thing as that would really void round 1.

There are some issues that have been raised here and I will look at them all seriously. Tweaks and improvements will happen and I will do my best to ensure that issues that have been raised will get sorted in some way.

As for the playing out all 25 rounds, I really don't want to do that. The reason being that the game is won or lost as soon as someone hits 13. So all round after that are pretty pointless. Personally I would feel as if it's salt in the wounds. But also it means games will take roughly twice as long - this may be ok, but it does make it more difficult from a administration point of view.

[=C=]

As for the playing out all 25 rounds, I really don't want to do that. The reason being that the game is won or lost as soon as someone hits 13. So all round after that are pretty pointless. Personally I would feel as if it's salt in the wounds. But also it means games will take roughly twice as long - this may be ok, but it does make it more difficult from a administration point of view.

I couldn't agree more. There is no point in playing out the full 25 rounds.
- The team that wins first to 13 may as well go AFK.
- It's a waste of time for both the teams and the admins/refs. The games would take twice as long.

For a 12/12 - Draw game. I guess it would simply end by both teams getting 1 point. Neither team lost nor won. Playing extra rounds is more time consuming, and also the team that managed to get to draw have achieved a draw, and got say 1 point. If they loose in the tie breaker, they get 0 points and the other team gets 2.

I think a draw would grant both teams 1 point, it's done simple and efficient.

[pyro]

I couldn't agree more. There is no point in playing out the full 25 rounds.
- The team that wins first to 13 may as well go AFK.
- It's a waste of time for both the teams and the admins/refs. The games would take twice as long.


So you don't care about a chance at getting a bonus point then? Or even trying to stop the other team get a bonus point.

It doesnt have to be played out the full 25 rounds, only until 1 team is on 14 points making it a win without the possibility for the other team to get the bonus point.

[=C=]

So you don't care about a chance at getting a bonus point then? Or even trying to stop the other team get a bonus point.

It doesnt have to be played out the full 25 rounds, only until 1 team is on 14 points making it a win without the possibility for the other team to get the bonus point.

If you've ended the match with a draw 12/12 then it's your "teams" fault for not achieving 13 round 'wins'. But i'm sure Hazard will make some sort of tie breaker.

[pyro]

I wasnt refering to the draw I was talking about people leaving after 13 rounds because they lost, yet they still had the chance for a bonus point.

GA played it as the defending team wins on a draw as they have successfully defended their place. However since this is a round robin that doesn't exactly work.

[mrsinista]

Actually, no they don't. If you're dominated in the first 12 rounds you get one chance - to win at that point you have to take 13 consecutive rounds.

There's no chance to get a feel for how the other team is playing, what/who their strengths & weaknesses are, or to adapt & overcome.

I totally agree Zolteg, with the current setup if two completely even teams played each other the team starting on defence would win. This is obvious so I wont go into why.

No one has commented on pyros suggestion of only attacking rounds count, which is the solution to this problem. With time limited halves and only attacking rounds count the attacking team is open to rush. For example, in the current format if the attacking team rushes and gets smashed they lose a round. In only attacking rounds count they only lose 20 seconds of say a 20 minute half.
Only attacking rounds count promotes a fast action packed and aggressive game. Camping becomes less of an advantage.
I accept that some players and teams will not like this style of play and thats fine, but imo it is a fairer system and has been used with great success in other fps games in Europe, especially clanbase.

[[TBAG] MrFiskIt]

I still don't understand why we cant jus't alternate the rounds? I don't know why you guys don't see this as a fair solution?

3D, 3A
3D, 3A
3D, 3A
3D, 3A

Tie Breaker.

Still - whatever you guys decide I guess.

thanks for discussing it anyway.

[switch.]

because thats not the way cod is played, it has always been played the same way with 2 halfs. there is nothing wrong with the format it was just a really really bad map choice.

[Crazy_Horse]

the 12 round swap is fine, as sloth said both teams get a chance to attack/defend so it's even, sure if you loose the first 12 rounds on a 1 sided map then it sucks as the pressures on but as it's already been stated thats just a mental barrier, if your as good as the other team was to manage 12 successfull defends then you should be able to manage 12 as well and then go to a tie breaker, now if you can't defend the full 12 like the other team did then you aren't the better team on the day. And the same goes if you lost rounds while defending, then you have to make those rounds up while attacking otherwise the other team is better than you as they defended better and attacked better. As for the tie breaker somehting needs to be done there because it is flawed atm, I'll happily admit I was more than relieved when after the 24 rounds we didn't get swapped back to attacking against tsw as that would of been alot harder to win then

[nevjmac]

I like this idea mrfiskit...


we were on attack and losing 12 - 0, and then were on pressure to get one point to not give away the flawless victory, the game ended 13 - 1... yay for that...

I would have liked to have 3 rounds switch or even 6 rounds... just to give us a chance at defending and get a few points in there... I will admint crex were the better team on the night, they had defense sorted even when I managed to snipe down the MG 5 times...

I also like the idea of moving away from SnD and starting sabotage where the gameplay is continuous and you will still have to play as a team to win, I have quite liked the sabotage gameplay as it then it does not come down to who camps best.

[mrsinista]

the 12 round swap is fine, as sloth said both teams get a chance to attack/defend so it's even, sure if you loose the first 12 rounds on a 1 sided map then it sucks as the pressures on but as it's already been stated thats just a mental barrier, if your as good as the other team was to manage 12 successfull defends then you should be able to manage 12 as well and then go to a tie breaker, now if you can't defend the full 12 like the other team did then you aren't the better team on the day. And the same goes if you lost rounds while defending, then you have to make those rounds up while attacking otherwise the other team is better than you as they defended better and attacked better. As for the tie breaker somehting needs to be done there because it is flawed atm, I'll happily admit I was more than relieved when after the 24 rounds we didn't get swapped back to attacking against tsw as that would of been alot harder to win then


It is not even, far from it. The team that defends first knows how many rounds they need to get on attack to win. Say they only need one round, they can 5 man rush bombsites for the next 12 rounds just to get one round. The team that was on attack first do not get this luxury, rushing is very risky when attacking first.
Because the system being used is common doesnt mean that it is the best/fairest. I think Hazard is doing a great job and for the first season this format was the best choice. Perhaps before the next season some of the top teams can scrim under different rules and see what works best.

[switch.]

lol swapping teams more than once is NOT a good idea.

sometimes it takes you 2-3 rounds just to get an idea of what the enemies are planning and how you should attack/defend to counter them. if you were to change roles every 3 rounds it would get confusing and make it difficult to sort your team out.

this format has been tested and used for years, its the same format that was used throughout CoD2. how many times do you swap teams in CSS? or in BF?

[Ra1nm4n]

I'll make this simple for everyone.

It is not flawed it was the map that we played on in round one.

That is all.

[Fubar]

you guys got completely scammed, pretty much whoever got attacker for that 25th round got shafted for that match

Its our fault as well for not getting more points an preventing the tie.

Hazard you are doing a good job and the rules can't be written for every eventuality



sometimes it takes you 2-3 rounds just to get an idea of what the enemies are planning and how you should attack/defend to counter them. if you were to change roles every 3 rounds it would get confusing and make it difficult to sort your team out.


But in saying that under the current rules with Downpour for example there is a substantial advantage when defending. If you had the misfortune to lose all your attacking rounds and you stuff your first defensive rollout its game over, you don't get the chance for 2-3 rounds to suss what the other team is doing.

But totally agree with you, constantly changing sides is a bad idea.

As for the rules the 12 round swap first to 13 did worry me a bit when I first read the rules when we signed up but those were the rules, I had never played CS or alike so assummed it must be ok and works fine.

I think the only thing that needs some thought is what happens in a draw at this stage. I'm sure the other maps wont have the possible issues of advantage that Downpour had.

[sad.act]

It is not even, far from it. The team that defends first knows how many rounds they need to get on attack to win. Say they only need one round, they can 5 man rush bombsites for the next 12 rounds just to get one round. The team that was on attack first do not get this luxury, rushing is very risky when attacking first.
Because the system being used is common doesnt mean that it is the best/fairest. I think Hazard is doing a great job and for the first season this format was the best choice. Perhaps before the next season some of the top teams can scrim under different rules and see what works best.

The team that defends first know they need 1 round to win because they kicked your ass for 12 round in a row... If you start on offense you can still rush a bomb site for 12 in a row, knowing that whatever you take away from their defense wins they have to make up assaulting... What you say makes no sense.

Let's say a team does defend all their rounds successfully, and you're sitting there thinking 'this is bs 1 loss and we lose', we'll, they won ALL of their defense rounds, you have to as well.

[pyro]

The team that defends first know they need 1 round to win because they kicked your ass for 12 round in a row... If you start on offense you can still rush a bomb site for 12 in a row, knowing that whatever you take away from their defense wins they have to make up assaulting... What you say makes no sense.

Let's say a team does defend all their rounds successfully, and you're sitting there thinking 'this is bs 1 loss and we lose', we'll, they won ALL of their defense rounds, you have to as well.

Im guessing you haven't played any other games under this format, because if you had you would actually understand what sin is on about.

[Menial]

Oh god, you've got Nick posting, I hope you are proud of yourselves :/

[mrsinista]

sad.act i think you have missed the point.
Its hard to explain it on a forum, the basis of it is this, the team that starts on defence gets to adapt their attack to suit the score they need to get to win. The other team does not get this chance. The main advantage is knowing how many rounds they can afford to lose. This enables them to gamble rounds with 5 man rushes etc.
If you still dont understand this then the best thing is for your team to volunteer to start on attack for every game :P

[nick247]

Im guessing you haven't played any other games under this format, because if you had you would actually understand what sin is on about.

um not really, it wouldnt have mattered what side we were to begin with vs Z, we would have played the same, you knew as defence you were in a desperate situation to begin with, regardless of whether you were first or second to play defence

[Fubar]

Oh god, you've got Nick posting, I hope you are proud of yourselves :/

As long as the responses are less than 600 pages in length and you don't need a degree in philosophy to understand it Nick's input is more than welcome :)

[blight]

Downpour was maybe the worst map I could have picked, and I'm sorry for that - it's very one sided and the choke points are crazy, throw in a mounted MG and yeeehaaaa bend over boys :P

For round 2 I will be switching to the PAM mode (all going well) and that will allow more options, such as disabling the MG, etc, etc - all things I need to work out and see if it's worth doing or not. If I can even just add a limit to how much you can fire the thing it would be ok - unlimited ammo, no overheating - just silly.

As for the format, yes even I think it's a bit odd, but that's coming from a BF2/2142 background. The format was picked as it is the standard type of format for COD competitions. I picked first to 13 as it it would make for a good length of game. First to 13 means 25 possible rounds. Yes we could play out all 25 rounds, but end of the day, once the score is 13-x then there is really no point continuing play other than for practice or warm fuzzies.

Yes it is disheartening when you get thashed on attack and don't get a real chance on defense, but as has been said, Downpour as a map really makes it worse. On a different map, the attacking team has much more of a chance. So again, my bad for picking that map :(

I will also be looking into the options with PAM for the 25th round. If teams go 12-12, then I think the 25th should be a team deathmatch with no respawn - so last man standing wins sort of thing.

For round 2 I will have things sorted out, the general structure will be the same, but some of the issues will be resolved.... and maps such as Downpour won't be picked again.
what the hell are you talking about. if it ends 12 all then play overtime (3 rounds on each side). why you would think playing a single extra round would be fair is beyond me, and a TDM overtime? Lol.

[blight]

I have never liked the 13 rounds system myself, I prefer the uk way of having only blue rounds count(attacking rounds) on a timelimit for each half. This eliminates the defense biased maps advantage of starting Defense first. But in saying that if it was so easy to defend like you said, since they just sat there and camped because they knew exactly where you were coming from how come you couldn't do the same, and win the next 12 rounds like they did.

I understand where your coming from as for the past 7 years ive been playing fps under this format in many comps with maps similar to this one, tbh its not really an advantage other than psychologically. If a map is so easily defendable to win 12 rounds on defense without a problem, you have exactly the same chance when you swap to defense.

But I still prefer the attacking rounds only setup, eliminates alot of the camping and makes for a more interesting game for both teams, spectators, admins.

the UK does not play like that. shut the fuck up

[Hazard]

you are getting on my nerve a bit now. telling people to shut the fuck up cos their opinion differs to yours? I must have missed the memo that announced yours is the only valid opinion.

This tournament is run the way it is run, as you can see if you read threads without the opinion that your way is right, I am very open to ideas and improvements. The simple fact is the structure was posted a LONG time ago and everyone signed up knowing the structure. Yes there are some things that need tweaking, and it is only that - TWEAKING to address what really boils down to minor details that have really been over dramatized by a terrible scrim map.

If you think your way is the only way you are very much mistaken. If you are not happy with the tournament, you are more than welcome to withdraw your team.

Bottom line, this is the ICONZ tournament, not the Blight Tournament. I have put in a tonne of time, stress and effort, as have the other admins and refs, and from you it only seems to be meet with negitivity and I really don't have any desire to put up with it.

As I keep saying, and I'll say it again - there will be tweaks made, but I will put money on the fact that they will not keep you happy, so maybe you need to ask yourself if you are going to play the tournament the way it has been structured and the way it has been outlined for well over a month or 2... or if you simply can't put up with this joke of a tournament.

I just really don't get your mentality, join a tournament, accept the rules and then proceed to seemingly demand changes and instruct us on "the" ways to do things..... just doesn't make sense.

[Spork]

Woah. Calm down there buddy. I guess you can talk for the whole of the UK?

[`Dirty Heathen]

Ok I am getting tired of this.

I have reffed most of these games the only people apart from TSW who I think the last round set up was fail.

The reason you all lost is because you got your arse kicked by a better team if you don't put the prep work and play against a completive clan who has put time in your going to lose .
I doubt you would have been able to defend against them either most of those game I watched the losing team where so disorganized it was frustrating to watch oh ok lets just all run into the 30 again and again and again.

Some clans are social and thats cool but don't blame the the game or format for your lose.


A lot of these top clan in this comp practice a map 20 times before they play a comp game on it if you think you can turn up and pub it up your very wrong and you will get punished for it I don't care what map it is or what format.


I am not slagging any clans off social or competitive is all good but you have to be realistic don't blame the format for why got arse raped.

[TeamWang]

I don't think the origional poster was upset about the loss, I think he was more correctly upset about not getting the opportunity to have a shot at all aspects of this game.

It's a bit crap that the final score line was 13 - 1 or 0 or whatever it was, where if the sides were switched every 3-6 rounds then the score line would have been much more likely to be 13 - 4.

It's a bit stink that people here are focusing on the OP sucking, or not being prepared. Read the OP and reconsider what the author was actually talking about before you tell them they suck. Missing the point makes you all look like idiots.

I don't think the map is flawed, it may not be the most fun as attacker, but a map is a map. I think switching the sides every 3-6 rounds would alleviate the frustration and boredom of the attacker, and make the map more fun to play for both experienced sides, and sides that may or may not stand much of a chance.

If the system can be changed to make all maps enjoyable, then I tend to think that it's the system's failing rather than the map's. More specifically it is the failing of marrying the current system to the current map.

OTOH, props to Hazard to a fun comp.

[sad.act]

Bored as an attacker?

I think I finded your problem. :S

[TeamWang]

Bored as an attacker?

I think I finded your problem. :S

You have to do a lot of sneaking and waiting around as an attacker, avoid being in the nade place at the nade time. Have to wait for the mobile defender to make a mistake, if they are to make a mistake. Have to wait a different amount of time each time to keep the defenders guessing. Have to sit there spectating or watching your watch if you're the first to die.

Maybe I'm the only one that finds CoD4 a bit boring.

[brucewillis2]

Maybe I'm the only one that finds CoD4 a bit boring.

ahhhhh no your not.

BF2 players I think are struggling with this camp/be camped play style. It's our problem and we're coming to terms with it. SOme will give up on it, some will persevere and try to make something out of it. having some kind of CS background helps.

[`Dirty Heathen]

It's a bit crap that the final score line was 13 - 1 or 0 or whatever it was, where if the sides were switched every 3-6 rounds then the score line would have been much more likely to be 13 - 4.

It's a bit stink that people here are focusing on the OP sucking, or not being prepared. Read the OP and reconsider what the author was actually talking about before you tell them they suck. Missing the point makes you all look like idiots.

.

I am not saying people suck at all Wang there are a lot of clans they play just for fun and are social clans there is nothing wrong with that.

[blight]

what the hell are you talking about? I'm not telling him to shut the fuck up because he opinion is different to mine, I'm telling him to shut the fuck up because he is talking out his ass, no UK or European or American tournaments play in the way he described

[blight]

you are getting on my nerve a bit now. telling people to shut the fuck up cos their opinion differs to yours? I must have missed the memo that announced yours is the only valid opinion.

This tournament is run the way it is run, as you can see if you read threads without the opinion that your way is right, I am very open to ideas and improvements. The simple fact is the structure was posted a LONG time ago and everyone signed up knowing the structure. Yes there are some things that need tweaking, and it is only that - TWEAKING to address what really boils down to minor details that have really been over dramatized by a terrible scrim map.

If you think your way is the only way you are very much mistaken. If you are not happy with the tournament, you are more than welcome to withdraw your team.

Bottom line, this is the ICONZ tournament, not the Blight Tournament. I have put in a tonne of time, stress and effort, as have the other admins and refs, and from you it only seems to be meet with negitivity and I really don't have any desire to put up with it.

As I keep saying, and I'll say it again - there will be tweaks made, but I will put money on the fact that they will not keep you happy, so maybe you need to ask yourself if you are going to play the tournament the way it has been structured and the way it has been outlined for well over a month or 2... or if you simply can't put up with this joke of a tournament.

I just really don't get your mentality, join a tournament, accept the rules and then proceed to seemingly demand changes and instruct us on "the" ways to do things..... just doesn't make sense.]

My mentality? you mean, being sane? how do you propose to make single round OT or TDM OT a fair and balanced decider of a match between two SD clans on a map that may or may not be balanced?
3 rounds per side OT is one way that most people agree works, whats yours?

[Hazard]

and how exactly is doing 3 more rounds "balanced"??
You still end up with a 3rd round where one team will have an advantage.

surprisingly I don't want to spend all night doing tie breakers, so a final round that's last man standing is, in my view and others I have spoken to also, the fair way to do it. There is no objective other than to kill, so you don't have an advantage on either side, and in the very rare case that the final 2 people kill each other, you can just do another last man standing round.

It's easy, it's fair as neither team has an advantage and it's pretty final - if you are the last man standing, you win.

I'm sorry if this does fit in with your way of doing things, but I bet if you ask [tsw] or sila2, who are the only teams thus far to hit 12-12, Last Man Standing would have been the only truely fair way to deal with that situation. Both teams would have been preying to end up on the defending side for the 25th round.

[5loth]

hazard, thats not the only fair way, and to be completely honest is a terrible idea.

why don't you just take a look at other competitions handle it? saves you having to spend excess time sorting it out, and you'll see there are already standard ways in place that don't take much time to sort overtime.

PAM has overtime built in that i believe has a 3 rounds per side (as blight referred to). yes it COULD end in a 3-3 result but you just replay overtime until there is a winner, time shouldn't be a big issue here as only under the
circumstances of a) there being a 12-12 draw, will OT even be required.

my favourite idea for overtime is first to win two consecutive rounds, swapping sides after each round. can be short, or drag on to make an
intense finish where every single round counts.

however, setting up my idea would take time, which isn't exactly what
everybody has atm.

simplest answer is use PAM for round 2 onwards, it is setup specifically for
competition much better than anything else can offer.

[Hazard]

I will be switching to PAM, but I intend of enjoying xmas and new years before even looking at PAM.

But as I have said to everyone, PAM will be in place by Round 2.

[5loth]

I will be switching to PAM, but I intend of enjoying xmas and new years before even looking at PAM.

But as I have said to everyone, PAM will be in place by Round 2.

sweet.

that will solve alot of peoples issues in one swoop.

[nick247]

most of the upcoming maps are relatively more balanced so it wont be as big an issue but if you have time dont forget to have another look at the bonus point system because that is effected by teams not playing the full 24 rounds

it makes who wins the knife round a bit more important than it should be (it should still be important but not that important)

[blight]

and how exactly is doing 3 more rounds "balanced"??
You still end up with a 3rd round where one team will have an advantage.

surprisingly I don't want to spend all night doing tie breakers, so a final round that's last man standing is, in my view and others I have spoken to also, the fair way to do it. There is no objective other than to kill, so you don't have an advantage on either side, and in the very rare case that the final 2 people kill each other, you can just do another last man standing round.

It's easy, it's fair as neither team has an advantage and it's pretty final - if you are the last man standing, you win.

I'm sorry if this does fit in with your way of doing things, but I bet if you ask [tsw] or sila2, who are the only teams thus far to hit 12-12, Last Man Standing would have been the only truely fair way to deal with that situation. Both teams would have been preying to end up on the defending side for the 25th round.
3 rounds, each way. stop being an idiot

[nick247]

read above blight hes gonna put the pam mod on for the next round so that solves the problem

[blight]

I read it, he still misinterpreted my post

[Hazard]

well I'm clearly an idiot aren't I.... silly silly me

[swindle]

lol step up admins. Cooler/ban him or delete his posts. Dont take shit.

[pyro]

the UK does not play like that. shut the fuck up


what the hell are you talking about? I'm not telling him to shut the fuck up because he opinion is different to mine, I'm telling him to shut the fuck up because he is talking out his ass, no UK or European or American tournaments play in the way he described


rofl go and have a look at clanbase idiot, one of the biggest UK gaming comps around. Yes they do play like that, try getting your facts right.

When is this tard going to be sent to the cooler? Massive neg rep with constant abuse with no apparent reason other then his belief of knowing it all.

[blight]

rofl go and have a look at clanbase idiot, one of the biggest UK gaming comps around. Yes they do play like that, try getting your facts right.

When is this tard going to be sent to the cooler? Massive neg rep with constant abuse with no apparent reason other then his belief of knowing it all.



http://clanbase.ggl.com/rules.php?lid=5711#chap_1
2. Match rules

1. A match is played over two maps, one picked by each clan in the challenge form. The clan with the lower ranking on the ladder can choose which map is played first. Each clan may choose which side they start on their opponents map.
2. Each match is played over two maps with a roundlimit of 20. Total rounds in a match is 2x20 = 40. The score is determined by adding all rounds won from each clan over the whole match.
3. There is a limit of one sniper per team, as set by the PAM mod. Using more than one sniper in a team may result in a forfeit loss.
4. The default team size for the CoD4 Search & Destroy ladder is 5on5. Other team sizes are available by editing settings on the challenge form.

2. Each match is played over two maps with a roundlimit of 20. Total rounds in a match is 2x20 = 40. The score is determined by adding all rounds won from each clan over the whole match.

2. Each match is played over two maps with a roundlimit of 20. Total rounds in a match is 2x20 = 40. The score is determined by adding all rounds won from each clan over the whole match.

2. Each match is played over two maps with a roundlimit of 20. Total rounds in a match is 2x20 = 40. The score is determined by adding all rounds won from each clan over the whole match.

2. Each match is played over two maps with a roundlimit of 20. Total rounds in a match is 2x20 = 40. The score is determined by adding all rounds won from each clan over the whole match.
please, shut the fuck up

[Hazard]

keep it up mate, at this rate you will be the first person removed from the tournament.

If you look at our rules, anyone banned from the game servers OR the forums cannot take part, you are currently 2 points (1 infraction) away from being banned from these forums... which will see you removed from the tournament.

So here are your options, pull your head in or leave.
I'll leave the choice up to you.

[blight]

well i'm terribly sorry that pyro decided to lie so blatently and that i had to correct him. You've already decided to use the PAM OT system, theres nothing left for me to argue

[Hazard]

I have no issue with you correcting people, it's how you feel you need to do it that's I have a problem with.

[pyro]

well i'm terribly sorry that pyro decided to lie so blatently and that i had to correct him. You've already decided to use the PAM OT system, theres nothing left for me to argue

Yes I thought I would just make up some random rules and blatantly lie.

# All matches will be played using the Charges Only system (CO rules). Only the wins of the attacking team (Blue) count.
# Each map will be played 2x20 minutes. Each clan plays both red and blue on each map.

CO rules are commonly used in Euro leagues.

I was going off how a lot other fps have been played at over at clanbase and also other Euro Leagues and assumed cod4 would be the same. Like I said, before abusing someone try getting your facts right.


Must be difficult having such a limited vocabulary to only be able to use obscene language.

[blight]

well that was a pretty idiotic assumption

[pyro]

well thats interesting because the clanbase rules say absolutely nothing about your ruleset being used in cod4 I WONDER WHY




I was going off how a lot other fps have been played at over at clanbase and also other Euro Leagues and assumed cod4 would be the same. Like I said, before abusing someone try getting your facts right.


I see your eyes work about as well as your brain.

Nice work go back and edit your post. By the way I never once said that Clanebase Cod4 was using those rules, I said that clanbase itself has used those rules. Dude just give up, you seriously are retarded.