|
On February 11 2011 04:36 mcduffs wrote:
What about a custom map for the regame? Like a map that has a timer on it. So it makes it like OverTime!
I thought that would be a good way to do a regame. Like 15 min overtime or something...
It would be interesting to see overtime done on a micro map. However, something would need to be set out in rules before the tourney started.
|
United States116 Posts
On February 11 2011 04:43 BloodNinja wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2011 04:36 mcduffs wrote:
What about a custom map for the regame? Like a map that has a timer on it. So it makes it like OverTime!
I thought that would be a good way to do a regame. Like 15 min overtime or something... It would be interesting to see overtime done on a micro map. However, something would need to be set out in rules before the tourney started.
Yes yes ofc. Just an idea i want you guys to kick around a bit 
|
On February 11 2011 04:36 mcduffs wrote:
What about a custom map for the regame? Like a map that has a timer on it. So it makes it like OverTime!
I thought that would be a good way to do a regame. Like 15 min overtime or something...
i still vote for Rock Paper Scissors... or tic tac toe!
|
can somebody make a poll for carom3D, quakelive, worms armageddon or multiplayer pacman as tiebreak options? ^^
|
United States116 Posts
On February 11 2011 05:00 Maista wrote:
can somebody make a poll for carom3D, quakelive, worms armageddon or multiplayer pacman as tiebreak options? ^^
Hell yes maista lets have a quakelive match to deiced the winner! that sounds like awesome
|
Of course the old fall back is flipping a coin. Which, while not the best option imo, is an option currently for some professional sports.
|
So horrible decisions, watched (or listened) the end of this game cast and having seen this TvT tank vs tank stalemate thing before and how avilo had the upper hand on air and was gonna progress I can't see how it could be called stalemate.
Yea the game was over an hour long, big fucking deal? You got a rule that states a game can't be over 60 minutes? Okay, so Gomas was waiting for the final, that sucks for him and it was getting late in EU, true also, was it around 3am where I live or so listening in. That's not when you do a regame of an hour long game to another hour long game, that's when you postpone the final to the next day then. Duh.
Also that "no1 is allowed to play t"
Seriously, what? Could some of the admins of that match please come and somehow try justify just what the fuck is that kind of decision? Can you possibly find a rule in your cup page showing situations where players are forced to play their offrace? :D:D no ofc you can't since the whole idea is ridiculous. Try make a poll and see how many of your players would agree to such a rule implemented, that there may be arbitrary situations where you may be forced to offrace your match, omg...
Avilo's playstyle might be boring to watch, but he isn't the only one I've seen come up with these games and clearly his way of dealing with it when that situation emerges is a lot better than I've seen in the other players ending there. That's not a reason to call regames mid match when he is at the point of pushing in.
You really dropped the ball in this cup night.
|
On February 11 2011 05:00 Maista wrote:
can somebody make a poll for carom3D, quakelive, worms armageddon or multiplayer pacman as tiebreak options? ^^
that is an option  but i just think we (well you) need to utilize the Referee ingame option more - as a referee i believe you can pause the match - and the players can see what you write in the chat
|
On February 11 2011 05:32 daemir wrote:
So horrible decisions, watched (or listened) the end of this game cast and having seen this TvT tank vs tank stalemate thing before and how avilo had the upper hand on air and was gonna progress I can't see how it could be called stalemate.
Yes Avilo had a slightly advantage. But "was gonna progress"? At what pace? Killing 5 tanks in 1 hour?
On February 11 2011 05:32 daemir wrote:
Yea the game was over an hour long, big fucking deal? You got a rule that states a game can't be over 60 minutes? Okay, so Gomas was waiting for the final, that sucks for him and it was getting late in EU, true also, was it around 3am where I live or so listening in. That's not when you do a regame of an hour long game to another hour long game, that's when you postpone the final to the next day then. Duh.
Rule: "Players who cause huge delays by going afk or having a lot of DCs may possibly be removed from a running tournament. The active admin can take this decision when a match delays the progress of the whole tournament."
Obviously the match delayed the whole tournament. And why are you so certain the third game would have been an hour long? Plus the fact the second game would have definitely lasted for another 2-3 hours.
Don't know about postponing. Probably admins wanted to try the third game and see how it will go.
On February 11 2011 05:32 daemir wrote:
Also that "no1 is allowed to play t"
Seriously, what? Could some of the admins of that match please come and somehow try justify just what the fuck is that kind of decision? Can you possibly find a rule in your cup page showing situations where players are forced to play their offrace? :D:D no ofc you can't since the whole idea is ridiculous. Try make a poll and see how many of your players would agree to such a rule implemented, that there may be arbitrary situations where you may be forced to offrace your match, omg...
Obviously offrace rematch wasn't the best idea. But admins had to take decision in minutes. And maybe that was just one of the ideas. I am not sure admins would have forced players to play offrace.
|
And OMFG if BeastyQT won't play craftcup in the future 
|
I do like the new rule CraftCup has added to their site:
NEW and subject to change: If a match is in a draw situation by the headreferees opinion, he can start a 15 ingame minute countdown, while trying to notify the players. If after that time nothing has drastically changed, both players will be removed from the current tournament. If both players can not be notified then the 75 ingame minute might be the deadline.
I actually like the ambiguity of "drastically changed". That's too hard too define in a rule. I like how both players would be removed. This dual removal forces BOTH players into action. I do think having a time-limit is a good idea. I think seventy-five minutes is a good amount of time. The tournament must go on. However, I think some rules about stalling should be added. "If one player is deliberately stalling the game and not playing towards victory... blah blah".
How I would interpret those rules on the game yesterday: The game was not in a draw situation. A draw situation is when both players either are unable or unwilling to change the game state. That had not happened. The game state was changing very slowly. The game WAS going beyond a reasonable time frame. Neither player was deliberately stalling. As avilo has shown in game 1 and many other games of his... he does have a plan to win a prolonged TvT. If, somehow, avilo is determined to be stalling in game 2 then beasty must also be determined to be stalling. He was playing the same way.
I do like how CraftCup is taking measures to correct the situation. I also like how they are making rules that are as fair as possible and rules that set a good precedence for future rulings and crazy situations. Good work.
Some comments:
Casters have it hard. Their job is to make words spew out of their mouth constantly. In the game of avilo against beasty that was a difficult task. I am unsure what was said or not said, and unsure of what was insulting or not insulting, but I understand that casters have it hard. Attempting to correctly report facts and precise numbers constantly is insanely difficult. Mistakes and poorly worded comments are expected at times and if not done too frequently and are honest mistakes they should be quickly forgiven. Judges/administrators who should put forth the time and effort to make rulings should be criticized differently.
DND_Enkil: "It is easy to point at something and scream wrong when you have no better solution yourself..."
I posted a better solution and the reasoning why:Link
Pitons: " To decide a winner it would have needed to take another 2-3 hours. And regarding the fact the tournament can't last forever it was a good and best decision."
Once again... the time argument isn't logical. Restarting a game is not in the interest of time. Restarting a game does not prevent a tournament from lasting forever. Your next post:
Pitons:"The third game had to be the decider - however long it could have been (maybe admins would have picked a small map hard to tell)."
However long it could have been!?! You want the tournament not to last forever but you want the third game to take "however long it could have been". These comments are contradictory. Also, the third game should not be the decider. avilo has won a game. beasty has not. At best, if you throw away the second game, the third game can only result in a win for avilo or a time for beasty. Thus, it is not necessarily the decider.
|
"Pitons: " To decide a winner it would have needed to take another 2-3 hours. And regarding the fact the tournament can't last forever it was a good and best decision."
Once again... the time argument isn't logical. Restarting a game is not in the interest of time. Restarting a game does not prevent a tournament from lasting forever. Your next post:"
Time argument is logical if it is clear the game will last for hours. That was the case. Rematch doesn't necessary mean the game will last for 2 hours again, does it? New game-new story. In case rematch would have again lasted an hour - then it's admins call. I just want to say - resuming the 2nd game meant several hours of play for sure. There were better chances the rematch will last shorter. If not - as i said - admins call.
"Pitons:"The third game had to be the decider - however long it could have been (maybe admins would have picked a small map hard to tell)."
However long it could have been!?! You want the tournament not to last forever but you want the third game to take "however long it could have been". These comments are contradictory. Also, the third game should not be the decider. avilo has won a game. beasty has not. At best, if you throw away the second game, the third game can only result in a win for avilo or a time for beasty. Thus, it is not necessarily the decider."
However long I mean short, average or long game (game till about an hour let's say - an hour game is long. I am not talking about 5 hours of superturtle game here ofc). Any of them. For 2nd game to finish it was needed hours imo. In rematch case - if it's stalemate after an about an hour again - admins have to decide again what to do. The right decision would be - avilo advances because he won 1st game. In any case finishing the 2nd game would last longer than one hour of the third game. And you want my comments to be contradictory, but I don't see how they are. And of course - if avilo wins the third game - he advances, if draw - avilo advances again, if beastyQT wins - admins decision. Flip the coin, whatever. In any case - somebody advances. Semifinal is bo3. So if second game is draw the third game needs to be played. 2 wins are needed to advance (or 1:2:0 in super rare cases). If the result is 1:1:1 admins decide who advances imo.
|
I like the new rule, and in posting of this rule you admit that you handled the situation wrongly. So I think a full apology to Avilo (and the viewers) would be appropriate so we can all move on.
|
if any of you played wc3 you would have known that if in an official tournament the game would last more than 30 minutes, vision of the map would be granted and at 40 min the game would draw if nobody won
|
On February 11 2011 06:14 Pitons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2011 05:32 daemir wrote:
Yea the game was over an hour long, big fucking deal? You got a rule that states a game can't be over 60 minutes? Okay, so Gomas was waiting for the final, that sucks for him and it was getting late in EU, true also, was it around 3am where I live or so listening in. That's not when you do a regame of an hour long game to another hour long game, that's when you postpone the final to the next day then. Duh.
Rule: "Players who cause huge delays by going afk or having a lot of DCs may possibly be removed from a running tournament. The active admin can take this decision when a match delays the progress of the whole tournament." Obviously the match delayed the whole tournament. And why are you so certain the third game would have been an hour long? Plus the fact the second game would have definitely lasted for another 2-3 hours. Don't know about postponing. Probably admins wanted to try the third game and see how it will go.
Just to point out something that has already been said before. The rule you are looking at is in regards to DCs and/or AFKs. It does not refer to slow game play. You cannot simply remove the conditions for the rule to apply it to a different scenario. There were no DCs or AFKs during the match in question. Therefore that rule is not applicable.
Edit- I like the new rule. It will force both players to take action or risk both getting eliminated. From a fan/viewer perspective the only issue I see would be if the rule was invoked during a semis match. For example, is this hypothetically occurred the other day then Gomas' win would be rather anti-climatic. However, it should effectively remove a majority of the controversy.
Edit 2 - I might be reading it wrong but it sounds like if admins cannot reach the players the match *might* get called at 75 minutes. It does not stipulate what happens in this case. Are both players removed even though they weren't notified? Do they re-game with an admin present to supervise the game and invoke the countdown if needed? I think that section of the rule could be fleshed out a bit more.
|
On February 11 2011 06:58 BloodNinja wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2011 06:14 Pitons wrote:On February 11 2011 05:32 daemir wrote:
Yea the game was over an hour long, big fucking deal? You got a rule that states a game can't be over 60 minutes? Okay, so Gomas was waiting for the final, that sucks for him and it was getting late in EU, true also, was it around 3am where I live or so listening in. That's not when you do a regame of an hour long game to another hour long game, that's when you postpone the final to the next day then. Duh.
Rule: "Players who cause huge delays by going afk or having a lot of DCs may possibly be removed from a running tournament. The active admin can take this decision when a match delays the progress of the whole tournament." Obviously the match delayed the whole tournament. And why are you so certain the third game would have been an hour long? Plus the fact the second game would have definitely lasted for another 2-3 hours. Don't know about postponing. Probably admins wanted to try the third game and see how it will go. Just to point out something that has already been said before. The rule you are looking at is in regards to DCs and/or AFKs. It does not refer to slow game play. You cannot simply remove the conditions for the rule to apply it to a different scenario. There were no DCs or AFKs during the match in question. Therefore that rule is not applicable. Edit- I like the new rule. It will force both players to take action or risk both getting eliminated. From a fan/viewer perspective the only issue I see would be if the rule was invoked during a semis match. For example, is this hypothetically occurred the other day then Gomas' win would be rather anti-climatic. However, it should effectively remove a majority of the controversy.
Then my bad. I thought the second part of the rule about delaying fits it. If it's only delays are created by afk and DC's then it doesn't fit ofc. Obviously delays can be created not only by afk and DC's. Long games can occur in normal conditions. Strange admins didn't think about such a scenario.
|
On February 11 2011 06:42 UnholyRai wrote:
I like the new rule, and in posting of this rule you admit that you handled the situation wrongly. So I think a full apology to Avilo (and the viewers) would be appropriate so we can all move on.
the admin and avilo disagree.
no need for an apology.
this is now a monstruous thread, has Avilo apologized for his refusal accept the administrator's decision and refusing to play on in the tournament while Gomas waited a long long time?
a pillar of this new rule includes an arbitrary decision made by a CraftCup admin about what constitutes "drastically changed".
a player in the future may still disagree what constitutes an admins arbitrary interpretation of "drastic change".
if a player in a free event that pays out money to the winner disagrees with an admin we all know what happens every time.
the CraftCup will continue to basically be the exact same tournament it has been over the past 18 months as KW.ConquerCup, ConquerCup, CraftCup and US.CraftCup...
thousands have played in the past and as long as the combined monthy prize giveaway money amounts amongst CraftCup.com and its client partners continue to increase so will participation in this family of events.
|
even tho i announced to post my personal statement here - i decided NOT to do that anymore - this whole situation just became bashing eachtohers heads and nothing more
good new rule
and i am happy to cast tomorrow's craftcup !
www.endrey.com
GL HF TO US ALL =)
|
On February 11 2011 07:10 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2011 06:42 UnholyRai wrote:
I like the new rule, and in posting of this rule you admit that you handled the situation wrongly. So I think a full apology to Avilo (and the viewers) would be appropriate so we can all move on. the admin and avilo disagree. no need for an apology. this is now a monstruous thread, has Avilo apologized for his refusal accept the administrator's decision and refusing to play on in the tournament while Gomas waited a long long time?
I can't believe how immature this statement is. In this whole thread, you've done nothing but make up excuses and trying to cover up the whole story, proving a level of incompetence I've rarely seen before. It's sad that you probably won't suffer any consequences from this, yet I hope that you keep this attitude forever so that it will come back at you one day.
User was warned for this post
|
On February 11 2011 08:59 Fireborn wrote:
I can't believe how immature this statement is. In this whole thread, you've done nothing but make up excuses and trying to cover up the whole story, proving a level of incompetence I've rarely seen before. It's sad that you probably won't suffer any consequences from this, yet I hope that you keep this attitude forever so that it will come back at you one day.
WOW!!! your own attitude is even worse! Who are you with only 3 TL posts, all of them being in this thread? You're showing some deep grudge and hatred over some little mistake, making such a big deal out of it. The lesson was learned, and we're all trying to move on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
