|
On August 22 2015 03:03 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2015 02:49 Cyro wrote:On August 22 2015 00:49 Roblin wrote:On August 21 2015 18:01 Cyro wrote: If the game reaches the 25-minute limit, victory will be awarded to the player who has the highest experience point value bad system I haven't tried it but please elaborate, how and why is it a bad system? I can see that it definitely isn't ideal, but there has to be some way to enforce the 25 minute time limit, so what would you suggest? the argument I've seen against this system is it promotes using the most efficient possible strategy, which often means the most turtley one. the counter -argument I have seen to that is if the enemy turtles then you can just grab the entire map and never attack, thereby winning because you have mined thousands of points worth of resources more. I have not seen this effect in action nor have I tried it, so I don't actually know if either of these arguments are true, but I would very much like to see a constructive argument be made around it. Winning based on an arbitrary exp point system (that wasn't designed for it) if neither player is 100% eliminated just has the potential to skew the games into being about something other than beating your opponent like you would in a real game/tournament Would you prefer draws? Which would encourage running around the map building pylons/extractors/depots Would you prefer a specific building/unit/supply count? Which would amount to the same thing as points but doesn't take into account efficiently trading units. What system do you think is most fair as a tie breaker?
I don't think a "tie-breaker" is right to consider it a proper tournament. 35 minutes of game-time in HOTS, i played plenty of games on ladder longer than that.
To be fair I'm not going to hate on it too much until I try it but I do think you will see some silly complaints about players who were clearly winning but who lost on XP, because god knows that the points stat at the end of the game has never truly been relevant to what happened in the game. I've lost many of games where I'm higher in points or won when i'm lower because points don't matter if you make a mistake that costs you the game.
|
On August 22 2015 03:21 Cyro wrote:
I can't think of a great one (at least not without a ton of effort) but the game length seems a bit too short. If it was longer, it would be more ok to win based on an imperfect system
Add 5 minutes onto a match and a 3/6-round Bo1 might take 15/30 minutes longer to complete and it only goes up from there. I don't think you can reasonably expect casual players to stick around for that long with out dropping out.
|
On August 24 2015 00:15 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2015 03:21 Cyro wrote:
I can't think of a great one (at least not without a ton of effort) but the game length seems a bit too short. If it was longer, it would be more ok to win based on an imperfect system Add 5 minutes onto a match and a 3/6-round Bo1 might take 15/30 minutes longer to complete and it only goes up from there. I don't think you can reasonably expect casual players to stick around for that long with out dropping out.
There is a little button to the bottom left, if everyone clicks Ready it skips that 15~30min waiting process.
|
On August 23 2015 23:08 GaNgStaRR.ElV wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2015 03:03 Naracs_Duc wrote:On August 22 2015 02:49 Cyro wrote:On August 22 2015 00:49 Roblin wrote:On August 21 2015 18:01 Cyro wrote: If the game reaches the 25-minute limit, victory will be awarded to the player who has the highest experience point value bad system I haven't tried it but please elaborate, how and why is it a bad system? I can see that it definitely isn't ideal, but there has to be some way to enforce the 25 minute time limit, so what would you suggest? the argument I've seen against this system is it promotes using the most efficient possible strategy, which often means the most turtley one. the counter -argument I have seen to that is if the enemy turtles then you can just grab the entire map and never attack, thereby winning because you have mined thousands of points worth of resources more. I have not seen this effect in action nor have I tried it, so I don't actually know if either of these arguments are true, but I would very much like to see a constructive argument be made around it. Winning based on an arbitrary exp point system (that wasn't designed for it) if neither player is 100% eliminated just has the potential to skew the games into being about something other than beating your opponent like you would in a real game/tournament Would you prefer draws? Which would encourage running around the map building pylons/extractors/depots Would you prefer a specific building/unit/supply count? Which would amount to the same thing as points but doesn't take into account efficiently trading units. What system do you think is most fair as a tie breaker? I don't think a "tie-breaker" is right to consider it a proper tournament. 35 minutes of game-time in HOTS, i played plenty of games on ladder longer than that. To be fair I'm not going to hate on it too much until I try it but I do think you will see some silly complaints about players who were clearly winning but who lost on XP, because god knows that the points stat at the end of the game has never truly been relevant to what happened in the game. I've lost many of games where I'm higher in points or won when i'm lower because points don't matter if you make a mistake that costs you the game.
It is arbitrary which one it is. So long as draws aren't allowed it will be fine--because it would such for terran to float everywhere and you get a draw while waiting for your flyers to build. Or to get a draw because your protoss opponent spread all 60 probes around the map to make pylons at the 23 minute mark.
Points, supply count, building count, whatever the scoring system (or lack thereof) is fine so long as they don't do draws. It will create a weird metagame where being more aggressive and having a bigger economy will be helpful.
|
Thank you Blizzard entertainment!
|
On August 25 2015 01:51 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2015 23:08 GaNgStaRR.ElV wrote:On August 22 2015 03:03 Naracs_Duc wrote:On August 22 2015 02:49 Cyro wrote:On August 22 2015 00:49 Roblin wrote:On August 21 2015 18:01 Cyro wrote: If the game reaches the 25-minute limit, victory will be awarded to the player who has the highest experience point value bad system I haven't tried it but please elaborate, how and why is it a bad system? I can see that it definitely isn't ideal, but there has to be some way to enforce the 25 minute time limit, so what would you suggest? the argument I've seen against this system is it promotes using the most efficient possible strategy, which often means the most turtley one. the counter -argument I have seen to that is if the enemy turtles then you can just grab the entire map and never attack, thereby winning because you have mined thousands of points worth of resources more. I have not seen this effect in action nor have I tried it, so I don't actually know if either of these arguments are true, but I would very much like to see a constructive argument be made around it. Winning based on an arbitrary exp point system (that wasn't designed for it) if neither player is 100% eliminated just has the potential to skew the games into being about something other than beating your opponent like you would in a real game/tournament Would you prefer draws? Which would encourage running around the map building pylons/extractors/depots Would you prefer a specific building/unit/supply count? Which would amount to the same thing as points but doesn't take into account efficiently trading units. What system do you think is most fair as a tie breaker? I don't think a "tie-breaker" is right to consider it a proper tournament. 35 minutes of game-time in HOTS, i played plenty of games on ladder longer than that. To be fair I'm not going to hate on it too much until I try it but I do think you will see some silly complaints about players who were clearly winning but who lost on XP, because god knows that the points stat at the end of the game has never truly been relevant to what happened in the game. I've lost many of games where I'm higher in points or won when i'm lower because points don't matter if you make a mistake that costs you the game. It is arbitrary which one it is. So long as draws aren't allowed it will be fine--because it would such for terran to float everywhere and you get a draw while waiting for your flyers to build. Or to get a draw because your protoss opponent spread all 60 probes around the map to make pylons at the 23 minute mark. Points, supply count, building count, whatever the scoring system (or lack thereof) is fine so long as they don't do draws. It will create a weird metagame where being more aggressive and having a bigger economy will be helpful.
The reason of the time limit is to keep the tournaments short. Allowing draws beats that purpose, so I don't think they would do that.
|
Just won my 2nd GM league tournament =)
|
Imo instead of XP it should be a balance between current income and supply that determines winner
|
On August 27 2015 02:48 Dumbledore wrote:
Imo instead of XP it should be a balance between current income and supply that determines winner
How would that work?
Higher supply =/= higher income
Higher income =/= higher supply
Does higher income give more points than higher supply?
Does higher supply give more points than higher income?
What if the game ends when one player's workers are returning resources but the other player's workers had already returned it?
What if you win the fight when time is called, but your opponent had overmade workers so they still had more supply than your 10 marines left over?
What if zerg instamax on roaches and drones in the last 2 minutes of the game to instantly win the supply/income count?
|
When someone plays an automated tournament (which is a cool feature) I guess that there is no way to watch it apart from if one of the players is streaming?
|
Has anyone experienced issues with the points = win system?
I'd even be curious if anyone has noticed ladder games where they've won despite having a lower score?
|
United States12235 Posts
On August 28 2015 16:39 y0su wrote:
Has anyone experienced issues with the points = win system?
I'd even be curious if anyone has noticed ladder games where they've won despite having a lower score?
It's not points points, it's experience points. You know, the little XP numbers that appear when you build something or destroy something. It keeps a running total of that for both players and the higher XP value for that game is the winner if the time limit is hit.
|
On August 29 2015 01:36 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2015 16:39 y0su wrote:
Has anyone experienced issues with the points = win system?
I'd even be curious if anyone has noticed ladder games where they've won despite having a lower score?
It's not points points, it's experience points. You know, the little XP numbers that appear when you build something or destroy something. It keeps a running total of that for both players and the higher XP value for that game is the winner if the time limit is hit.
I always thought they were the same thing - whatever was used to calculate "points" was just converted to "XP" for leveling. How different are they?
|
I still don't quite understand why these tournaments are scheduled at certain times tbh.
Why not just let players sign up and as soon as there are enough players start it?
I bet there would be a lot of interest in playing tournaments pretty much all the time, but i probably will NEVER play one if i have to be online at a specific time
|
On August 22 2015 03:21 Cyro wrote:
I can't think of a great one (at least not without a ton of effort) but the game length seems a bit too short. If it was longer, it would be more ok to win based on an imperfect system
I think it's good enough tbh. Tournaments are ready painful enough as it is cos most of the time as it is, you have to wait the full duration before the next round. During the weekend tournaments, it gets so bad that you can be waiting hours in total, especially if you skip round 3. Games in LotV don't tend to even reach that game length, most people get there their matches done really quicker, and then go play ladder games and delay the entire tournament.
I don't know what they can do to make these tournaments less painful, but lengthening the game length would be the worst thing they could do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
