sinewav wrote:Owned: Remember the other idea I had when the server crashed? I suggested we play a new match to 50. In that case it seemed totally fair since we were both around the 50 point mark anyway (I was surprised you guys didn't go for that because we were essentially giving you points).
I seem to remember ct liking it as a team. We asked eckz for his opinion on it and he said we should just reset scores. Since any disagreement between teams would just make us default to that, we just stopped arguing. I can see why it seems like we were against it though.
So, if we can't agree on where to pick up after a server crash, maybe the policy could be to have a half match instead? Of course there are problems with that too, like if the server crashes at 96-96 or 90-50 and the team with the lower score winds up winning. But playing the entire match over in a crash really burns the other teams and sets us waaaaay behind schedule.
The reason I used the analogy to scores was that I thought it was rather obvious that you should reset scores. I was trying to say that if you believed you should reset scores (something I thought a vast majority of people believed), then you should also believe in resetting player difference.
As for elmo's idea, I'd say that the idea is actually in the opposite direction of where we want to go. While dlh's suggestion rewards a team for the core dumps they've done in the round (although obviously not as much as I'd want), elmo's suggestion ignores any gains that a team has made and reverts it to how it was before.