QuakeWorld.nu Forum

Generally I'd be for this, but there are two problems of varying severity.

1) All those older than oldschool dm4 or dm6 specialists would not sign up/whine so hard that your head would implode as soon as someone like locust gets knocked out by some div3 player because he only has dm4 and aerowalk, making this essentially kenyawhine.

2) This would mean dm2 being the forced decider in many matches due to few people specialising in it and few people being especially bad at it. This random-ass cs piece of shit map being the decider in the majority of tournament games can only be a disgustingly bad thing for competition. I would think that this is going to be the most significant problem from both a player's and spectator's point of view. My solution (predictably) is to toss it and put in a decent duel map like skull or doomed, but obviously that brings its own problems.

Well, for one this would drop the highest level of gameplay straight out before the game is even played. Instead of masterful playing, we would only see decent/ok level gameplay. I don't see the problem in the traditional bo3. But then, I don't play or spec duels.

I like this idea, but mainly because I wouldn't need to play aero at all. Guess other people whos voting for this also feels the same, but perhaps about another map.

As I see it both systems have a set of pros and cons.

The normal QW system has one big thing going for it, its fair.
The player that picks first is at a disadvantage as he can by accident choose his opponent's best map thus letting his opponent play his two best maps. However he gets this back (if) once they are to decide the third map by dropping last. By dropping last he gets two maps from which he can choose the one he plays best on to be the decider making the current system in QW fair.

There are however some things that are not so good about this system.
It doesn't reward being a good overall player and the winner is rarely the one that is best overall as he will have dropped his worst map and only needed to win on his three best maps through out the tournament.
It also doesn't make for exciting games, by dropping first you make sure the three maps on which those players are as equal as possible gets played instead of having the two first maps being one sided with a close decider.

Dropping first basically has the opposite pros and cons.
The pros are that you get an exciting tournament, as the players are forced to play those maps on which they are the most equal.
You also make sure the winner is the best overall player as he can not go through the tournament only winning his 3 best maps over and over.

The cons are that its not fair. Dropping first means you can by accident drop your opponents worst map thus allow him to drop his second worst map and you never get anything back for this as the three maps to be played are already decided.
A small but to be noticed con is that you very rarely get to see a player play his best map, in fact they almost only get to play their best map during the finals when the match is BO5. On the other hand those maps are usually very one-sided and boring.

The way I see it is that you should choose system after what you want.
Is the tournament supposed to determine the best overall player in the world? Are the matches supposed to be spectated by a lot of people? Is the tournament supposed to bring attention and perhaps new players to the game? If you answer yes on any of these then you should drop first.

But if instead the tournament is supposed to be as fair as possible, or as fun as possible for the players then you should go with the current system we use in QW.

Last edited by zappater (04 Feb 2010 20:56:51)

Awesome idea, and not only from a players' pov. I'm sure I'm not the only one who finds most games boring until the third map begins. After all, players tend to win their "own" map and usually the final score is obvious by the second minute. The basic concept still applies that the player who is better on 3 out of 5 maps wins as two of them are played in every game (unless, of course, he drops one of them himself).

Seems ridiculous this hasn't been thought of before...

Another solution is to play all 5 maps each time and count the score in map wins. (just like in the polish 4on4 league, it only has 3 maps tho)
This way no map will be forgotten and you will have to be good at 3 maps to win a game.
Cant see how anyone could whine about this except for my next point: the time issue.

A normal duel would take 50 minutes game time and also some idle and in-between-maps-war extra time and maybe this is too much?

I generally dont play or spec duels but maybe this would be the most fair and exciting option?

Sure, but since it was brought up that it supposedly was unfair to be good at one map and also unfair to not get to play that one map i just thought of a way to avoid both these "problems"...

Also, how intense can it be in those first games?
How can it be a waste of time to prac all 5 maps even if you lose all 5 seeing as someone stated "practice, practice, practice" as a way to get better in an interview the other day
Lastly, when the games get intense, isnt it bo5 then anyway?
Just a thought...

Last edited by Hooraytio (05 Feb 2010 08:49:17)

Good point, so in the end this comes down to time vs fairness. Alltho im not even sure it is unfair and/or boring to use the current system

But what do i know, maybe some new guys will start playing the game if we keep changing maps and rules?!?!

The other maps dont become unnecessary since the score can be everything from 5-0 to 0-5 (4-1, 3-2 etc etc). I mean if 1p per map win is used.
At 3-0 the other player can still score 2 important point in the last 2 maps. (this is only important in division play tho)

In a knockout competition i agree with stev, play bo5 in all games

I think the time issue is more of it being exhausting (yeah?) than taking too long time.
Btw, with some ping whine, timeouts and other delays a bo5 can take much more time than 60mins

bo5 makes more sense than the original propostion. I think on average it wont increase the game time that much.

soma wrote:

All in all, I think it is fair to say that a true duel champ should be good on all (regularly) played maps, rather than just one, two or three. Some players are very good on ONE map exclusively, and tend to get far in duel tournaments nevertheless. This is because they play their one very good map at the start and practically enter the encounter with a 1-0 lead. Now for that player to win a round in a tourney, all he needs is to do okay on one other map. This player is likely to beat someone who is good on all 5 maps, but not VERY good on ONE specific map. To me, in a way, this seems kinda wrong. Also, it would might result in a greater variation of maps being played.

I don't really like this idea. I think a true duel champ should not only be good on all regularly played maps, but have a skill to NOT FUCK IT UP, even if he's in a bad situation. This means GIVING A 100% EFFORT ALL THE TIME. Awesome players, like Locktar have a tendency to fuck up in the last second, and that sucks.

Also, it seems weird not to give my opponent a chance to show me his best. I would WANT TO play my opponent's fave map.

Last edited by bent (06 Feb 2010 15:01:12)

ddk wrote:

but, bo5 at the early stages that could be 30minutes of pure rape - this is the point of the competition where the skill gaps are biggest and it makes the most sense _not_ to have bo5 innit?

well, you can always give wo if you don't feel like playing anymore. I don't thin that extra 10 min of target practice is going to be a big problem to the winner.

i want to play my best map, and i want to play my opponent's best map. i want to play on the rest too . is it a very stupid idea to play 2-3 maps in a first round, then play the rest a few days later? ok maybe it is, im just thinking

bo5 would be cool too.
Else I like these new rules. It's being used in pretty much any other fps game for tournaments for good reason imo.

i still dont see why someone shouldnt be able to pick their best/favourite map, it doesnt make sense to take away that from the players

top notch psychoanalysis by mister blaze

that's a saying.

edit, btw i guess you missed the parts where i said i would play anything in both duel and 4on4.
but it's just a grand conspiracy by "the kenya side" to take away the BEST maps from the people we so envy
don't be a complete lunatic.

Last edited by fern (09 Feb 2010 18:44:53)

fern wrote:

that's a saying.

edit, btw i guess you missed the parts where i said i would play anything in both duel and 4on4.
but it's just a grand conspiracy by "the kenya side" to take away the BEST maps from the people we so envy
don't be a complete lunatic.

I don't miss things. You were the first to comment and with an offended tone, so it seemed befitting. I'm just calling it the way I see it, don't think it needs deep psychoanalysis to notice the obvious. People get bored having their ass handed to them and start calling for a change, new maps, new mods, new something. Seen it a thousand times over. The casual players who are never great in anything, always get bored fast and move on to try another new game...

Stev wrote:

Is that like "He who smelt it dealt it"?

Hadn't heard that one before. Would that make sense in the context though?