Organised Matches - 2nd - Feedback

[Pink Tomatoes]

Well the second match finished shortly a while ago. It was slightly smaller than last week. Teams were balanced, and matches close.

If anyone has any feedback, please leave here .

My feedback would be, maybe the majority thing could be more aimed at deciding an administrator for a match, who would then administrate and give their own rules and decisions to their particular style.

I would also suggest it be made clearer if an administrator is allowed to play in the match .

[sinewav]

My feedback would be, maybe the majority thing could be more aimed at deciding an administrator for a match, who would then administrate and give their own rules and decisions to their particular style.

Following an admin's rules on the spot is a bad idea. That's why we have the Wiki. The admin needs to follow those rules only. If we want the flexibility of team picking, then that needs to be recorded in the Wiki, and probably mentioned beforehand. I think the admin position should be voluntary. Maybe the 'admin style' can be appended to their name when the register?

I would also suggest it be made clearer if an administrator is allowed to play in the match .

I remember it was suggested that an admin shouldn't play if the responsibility was too great, or time consuming for them. All we have to write in the Wiki is "admins can chose to play in the match if they feel comfortable with the responsibility"; or something like that. Sound good?

Overall I think it was a pretty good time, except for when some CT/TR members left half-way through for a clan war. We had balanced teams, and it started mostly on time. The only problem we keep running into it from those people who refuse to read the OM rules, or want to change them in the server instead of on the Wiki where it should be.

[Concord]

it went pretty well, I had 18 pts after the first 4 rounds =} and that was enough to keep me happy for the rest of the day.

it's ok epsy its going to be ok

[Pink Tomatoes]

Proposed amendment: A player that hasn't signed up cannot join at all once the first match started. --epsy 14:58, 21 December 2008 (PST)

I agree with this amendment. It seemed rather unfair of myself, to refuse some players to enter, but allow others to play. This rule should be kept strictly. Players on the register list however could be allowed late entry if there is free space on a team.

I also propose clarity in the registrar system. That the register list positions 1 to 16 guarantee you a place in the match (To make some people happy, this could not apply to persistent no shows). Those listed as a 'maybe' (17+) will be allowed to play if there is space. They may also take the place of an unregistered player, even if they are late entry. Unregistered players are of the lowest priority, as they should have shown an intend to play by signing the registry.

edit:

The administrator, if playing, should not see /team messages not intended for their team. --Pink Tomatoes 15:13, 21 December 2008 (PST)

I have also suggested the above , I don't think it is that controversial, so I added it to the wiki

[epsy]

I also propose clarity in the registrar system. That the register list positions 1 to 16 guarantee you a place in the match (To make some people happy, this could not apply to persistent no shows). Those listed as a 'maybe' (17+) will be allowed to play if there is space. They may also take the place of an unregistered player, even if they are late entry. Unregistered players are of the lowest priority, as they should have shown an intend to play by signing the registry.

And this gives a structure to give players that sign up but don't show without telling anyone to loose priority, good idea.

edit:

The administrator, if playing, should not see /team messages not intended for their team. --Pink Tomatoes 15:13, 21 December 2008 (PST)

I have also suggested the above , I don't think it is that controversial, so I added it to the wiki

Should be a bug if that happened, or it was just sasha's fake team messages. Anyway leave it in place in case we got a really really bad badmin

[pike]

It was fun until some people left to join clan battle Also telling specs to gtfo when we needed more players is just stupid. Server has 26 slots doesn't it? If they don't make lags, let them stay or even play a match or two. Next week they would probably register.

[1200]

In the future it'd be nice if people that have a clan match that may overlap with this competition to not play, cause it totally messed up our game


Quote:

A player that hasn't signed up cannot join at all once the first match started

I don't know if this is the best way to handle this. Basically mofoz are leaving whenever they feel like. So if people leave unexpectedly and teams become unbalanced there should be a way to rebalance it. Why would you not let an unregistered player play if a match becomes 7vs4 like it did....
Isn't one of the point of all this to try to get new comers to play? New comers don't usually know anything about the forum or signups...

Perhaps an admin that doesn't play can handle shuffling of players so the players that are playing can concentrate on playing. So if a player leaves one team the admin can take out one player from the other team to keep it balanced etc. When another late or unregistered player shows up each team is allowed to add another player each. If the admin can handle it the matches will still go down smooth.

[1200]

Quote From The Rules

Teams are formed "on the spot" i.e. you join the team you wish, players will try to avoid too uneven teams --K-Yo 09:02, 9 December 2008 (PST)

I'm not sure what the logic behind letting people to join whatever team they want in getting even teams.
I don't think OM#2 was balanced as it could have been.
Match count was 3-1 and the 1 match that the losing team won was when they had 7vs4 advantage.


When i suggested electing 2 captains somebody said i should have changed the rules in the Wiki.
What i don't get is so whatever change somebody makes last becomes the rules???? I thought this was supposed to be decided by the majority. But I do see that some people have gone out to change/add the rules on their own. Somebody explain pleez.

[epsy]

If they don't make lags, let them stay or even play a match or two.

I allow specs as long as they talk in /team or just don't talk. The ones we had constantly bothered to join also using stupid ultra-long chat prefixes.

I don't know if this is the best way to handle this.

If we don't do that, and thus let unregistered people join in the middle of a match, it just won't work. Letting unregistered people in before match has started, like with 1stunna is fine IMO.

When i suggested electing 2 captains somebody said i should have changed the rules in the Wiki.
What i don't get is so whatever change somebody makes last becomes the rules???? I thought this was supposed to be decided by the majority. But I do see that some people have gone out to change/add the rules on their own. Somebody explain pleez.

Well, first 5 rules are straightforward. For that, I proposed an amendment which puts a delay of 2 days before a rule can apply. Sounds sane?

[1200]

Epsy Wrote:

1200 wrote:
I don't know if this is the best way to handle this.

If we don't do that, and thus let unregistered people join in the middle of a match, it just won't work. Letting unregistered people in before match has started, like with 1stunna is fine IMO.

Could you explain why it won't work??? I explained how it could work.


Also peep the "Match Start" section of the rules. I added/changed some.
I guess its time for a poll since mine & lighting's conflicts with the original one???

http://wiki.armagetronad.net/index.php? ... atch_Start

[SageLord]

In the future it'd be nice if people that have a clan match that may overlap with this competition to not play, cause it totally messed up our game

We would've made it to the clan war if the OM #2 had started on time.

[K-Yo]

Also peep the "Match Start" section of the rules. I added/changed some.
I guess its time for a poll since mine & lighting's conflicts with the original one???

I agree with your rules.

But I doubt having just my agreement is enough to remove the rule I made (that would be stupid).
so, feel free to start a poll.

I added some rules too:
# If two rules are in contradiction, the earliest will be applied --K-Yo 02:30, 23 December 2008 (PST)
# if you feel like a rule needs to be deleted, start a poll on forums. this poll have to last 2 weeks. not more, not less (this duration can be discussed on forums) --K-Yo 02:38, 23 December 2008 (PST)

# If a player joins without being on the list, he can take any available spot, but if a registered player comes before the end of the first match they will switch after the end of the first match. If a registered player comes after the first match is over, he cannot take someone else's spot by force (or admin help) --K-Yo 09:02, 9 December 2008 (PST)

* Proposed amendment: A player that hasn't signed up cannot join at all once the first match started. --epsy 14:58, 21 December 2008 (PST)
* Another proposal: A player that hasn't signed up can join only if the admin of the match thinks it will improve the game (balance unbalanced teams for e.g., no other example comes to my mind arm...) --K-Yo 02:34, 23 December 2008 (PST)

[1200]

Sagelord Wrote:

We would've made it to the clan war if the OM #2 had started on time.

I mean i don't think you did it on purpose or anything but you know there is always a possibility that tournies go over schedule.
I mean it seems like the clan war was scheduled for 2000 gmt. Did you really expect a best of 5 match that starts at 1930 gmt to finish by then?

K-Yo Wrote:

I agree with your rules.

But I doubt having just my agreement is enough to remove the rule I made

Why not remove your rule then, if you agree?? Things can run a lot smoother if we can avoid polls unless necessary.

I also added

The original author of a rule may delete his/her own rule if he/she feels that a new proposed rule makes an improvement to the current rule. --1200 03:23, 23 December 2008 (PST)

[K-Yo]

Why not remove your rule then, if you agree?? Things can run a lot smoother if we can avoid polls unless necessary.

I also added

The original author of a rule may delete his/her own rule if he/she feels that a new proposed rule makes an improvement to the current rule. --1200 03:23, 23 December 2008 (PST)

I disagree with that.
removing the rules you put gives you more rights than others over a rule and ca be dangerous.

for example, I made almost all the rules at start.
I could have, 5 minutes before the start of the match, remove half of them...

another example: epsy put a rule about waiting 2 days before the rules is running, he could remove it, and add another rule right before the start of a match...

if a rule has been added and noone talked about it, maybe they agreed with it...

[1200]

I disagree with that.
removing the rules you put gives you more rights than others over a rule and ca be dangerous.

for example, I made almost all the rules at start.
I could have, 5 minutes before the start of the match, remove half of them...

another example: epsy put a rule about waiting 2 days before the rules is running, he could remove it, and add another rule right before the start of a match...

Well we just need to add a rule that sayz it takes 2 days before a removal of a rule takes effect like adding a new rule.

If somebody wants to be malicious with the rules it'll be obvious and we can do something if it happens. I think the author deserves the right to remove what he/she wrote, it wasn't there in the first place if he/she didn't write it. If the rest of the community wants to keep the same rule, then someone can re-post the same rule.

If the original author of a rule wishes to delete his/her own rule, he/she may make a post underneath the rule stating so.
If there are no opposing suggestions within one week, the author of the aforementioned rule may delete the rule but must post the deleted rule under the "Deleted Rules That Do Not Apply Anymore" section. (This duration can be discussed in forums if needed) This privilege is only given to the original author of a rule. The effect of such deletion will be applied after two days from the date & time of the deletion. --1200 18:03, 23 December 2008 (PST)