-=-
Menu
Tournaments
Profile
Poll
Latest videos
Latest comments
2019-08-23: "Nice work! ..." -GrytmasternCC
2019-08-23: "cc on firefor o..." -Loon
2019-08-23: "oof close one" -Loon
2019-08-21: "ah heres regg..." -Loon
2019-08-21: "gg re" -Loon
2019-08-20: "nice lahm strat..." -ThunDer
2019-08-19: "hyp failed at F..." -ThunDer
2019-08-18: "bg" -ThunDer
2019-08-14: "dayum gurus, ni..." -[GpW]Urbs
2019-08-10: "gg wp ..." -Laro24
2019-08-10: " ..." -[GpW]Urbs
2019-08-10: "pwnd ..." -Plumbe
Latest matches
flag CC [11:02] [GpW]flag
flag CC [05:04] [GpW]flag
flag CC [06:03] [GpW]flag
flag [GpW] [07:00] CCflag
flag [GpW] [05:01] CXflag
flag CX [07:06] [GpW]flag
flag -t3> [05:02] CXflag
flag CX [05:04] -t3>flag
flag -t3> [05:04] [GpW]flag
flag CX [09:02] -t3>flag
Latest forum posts
By: SirEmentaler, in: What JJ2 level title best describes your sex life?JJ2 related 2019-08-21 20:45
I just wanted to say this topic was inspired by a ...
By: Slaz, in: What JJ2 level title best describes your sex life?JJ2 related 2019-08-20 14:13
ELEKTREK PYRAMID :dizzy:
By: PurpleJazz, in: What JJ2 level title best describes your sex life?JJ2 related 2019-08-19 06:44
15 Second Rush
By: Laro24, in: What JJ2 level title best describes your sex life?JJ2 related 2019-08-10 19:15
Nuclear Afterblast :whistling:
By: Plumbe, in: What JJ2 level title best describes your sex life?JJ2 related 2019-08-10 16:50
Wicked Wood :flex:
More...!

JJnet's forum

«Latest posts» «Latest threads» «Search» «User CP»

  Page: 1 2 3 4 5
     Improving rules v2 | [q] 2012-03-13 20:07
Lithium
aEsavatar
JJnet user

Posts: 1758
107
Grytolle asked me to check out existing rules and try to improve them. So here they go:

General rules with regard to the ladder site

Clans abusing the ladder system in any way in order to gain an advantage or just to be a nuisance will be deleted. Further punishment may include deletion of the accounts of the person responsible for the abuse, in extreme circumstances. For example, someone who has made fake accounts for fake wars may lose all of his/her accounts and banned.
All clans with atleast 20 points may not refuse a CW against any clan more then 3 times (It's 3 times in total. It still counts if it's different clans who sent the challenges. But it's 3 per league.). But they may refuse to play normal matches and to reschedule the CW by using the "change day" button. If they do refuse 3 CW challenges in a row, they will lose 1/3 of their points. Repeatedly rescheduling CW to senseless dates or only playing very low ranked clans in order to be able to decline challenges will be considered abusing the ladder system and the clan will risk penalties. If a clan has a CW scheduled within the next 30 days, this rule does not apply and they may refuse all challenges sent to them. Also, remember that the CTF and the TB ladders are separate competitions. So the CW refusal rule is also separate for each ladder.
And remember that the site is using GDT+1

A player may only be a member of one active clan at a time.


Besides arranging the text (fix grammar errors and for example place CW rules on one place only, not throughout the entire text), I believe the CW system should be made more clear and fair. People are basically forced to play clanwars. Maybe remove the limit or change it to 5 or 7 times? The rule could also apply only for the first ranked, as before.

§15 If one clan for some reason can't continue the game, they have 10 minutes to find replacements. If they are unsuccessful in doing so, it is up to their opponents to decide whether they want to claim a forfeit win or not. They are within their full right to do so, but should keep in mind that it can be harmful for clan relations and not really worth it in what is supposed to be a friendly game. Submitting a tie is allowed, provided that the score in indeed tied. The choice remains completely with the team entitled a to a forfeit win. You are entitled to a forfeit win even if you are behind 39-0 when the other team runs out of players.

Should be made more clear. Teams usually continue to play short of one player - it isn't allowed by the rule. Allow it or officially disallow it. Also, does this apply to clanwars as well?

Quote:
Gry: The coin flipping procedure should be formalized for clanwars, or replaced with the "challenged decides" system that we have for ladder matches


You mean if the teams can't agree on the color? I say the challenged should decide, as in normal ladders, but there is already a rule about it:

§13 Concerning what colour teams should play as, a team choses colour on the opponent’s map. Upon agreement, other manners of choosing colours are allowed.

It should be the same for choosing the map order IMO.


§6 There must be atleast two rounds played. Two rounds is the default case. If you want to play more rounds, remember to save proof that both clans agreed on this. If the CW ends in a tie, there soulde be a final round played.

A clanwar rule that was recently added, but it wasn't announced on the frontpage, I think. IMO one round clanwars should be allowed IF both teams agree.

There are other issues too (mappool, veto system). Discuss here.

EDIT: TB season is quite inactive. How about returning the first season system? (TB and DOM get allowed in the regular season).






We rode on the winds of the rising storm,
We ran to the sounds of the thunder.
We danced among the lightning bolts,
and tore the world asunder.
Replies
wKtK
avatar

JJnet user
Posts: 707
121
#51 | [q]2012-03-17 00:51
Quote:
I found the simple solution: don't play against them.

I'm happy at least SOMEONE here has common sense emo

Also, the CW's are fine as they are, imo. I mean, ofc active clans have an advantage, it's a competition :p
You ever seen a war in which one side was forbidden by God/Gry/Whoever from attacking to much?

And I know we (aEs) will be at a disadvantage because of this, but face it:
Our skills are decent, but we ARE inactive as second hell.

So why change it. Play for fun if you want fun, play for points if u want points.
also gn.


Nostalgia warning, well, at least if you're one of those ppl...
[GpW]Urbs
[GpW]
avatar
JJnet user
Posts: 377
54
#52 | [q]2012-03-17 09:23
wktk ftw
King
CX
avatar
JJnet user
Posts: 219
35
#53 | [q]2012-03-17 11:22
Not playing against players who tend to use such lame tactics is a very wise solution idd, but the fact that there are players who resort to such cheap tricks still stays, which is why i find it that there should be something done about it.

There is nothing wrong with the CW rules, they were made for perfect players in an ideal world. Unfortunately there is no such thing as an ideal world, and most ppl here tend to be retards, for example challenging inactive/weak clans for points, or trying to abuse the rules without actually breaking them. CW's are often played to prove which clan is better, and is still actually suppost to be a friendly game, but it can sometimes create a massive hostility towards each other. Creating rules which couldn't be abused would be a bit hard to make, since there are ppl who will always find a way to troll.


Player: Air!
Air: ?
Vegito
CC
avatar
JJnet user
Posts: 398
31
#54 | [q]2012-03-17 11:52
I have to say a clan losing by forfeit cause of the challenge rule only happened once or so? I believe the admins are quite "friendly" towards this rule and wouldn't take just any random challenge serious.. It is a serious challenge we're talking about and not a fun challenge. That gives protection in a way already and wouldn't just let anyone steal your points. emo
GLaDOS
aEs
avatar
JJnet user
Posts: 123
28
#55 | [q]2012-03-17 12:42
But the 3 refuse rule has been abused against CDF back when I was a member of theirs, and the admins did not care about it at all. The Yastogs (the RA incarnation at that time) who had just started their clan and thus had zero points challenged us three times in direct succession, and after having refused two of their challenges, we did not have any choice but play the clanwar against them, which cost us almost all of our points. This essentially renders the rule useless, and it could just be reworded as "CW challenges cannot be refused if you have 20 points or more". I doubt the admins would give a single fuck if anything like this was to happen again, seeing as it's legal with the current wording of the rules. "Abuse" within the borders of the formal rules is simply too much of a subjective thing to judge fairly, this is why I want the rules changed.
Lithium
aEs
avatar
JJnet user
Posts: 1758
107
#56 | [q]2012-03-17 13:04
Make the rule more clear, at least. This way it's left to the admins to decide whether a challenge violates the rule or not. and someone will always be upset.


We rode on the winds of the rising storm,
We ran to the sounds of the thunder.
We danced among the lightning bolts,
and tore the world asunder.
aimane
CX
avatar
JJnet user
Posts: 68
14
#57 | [q]2012-03-17 13:19
how about this honestly I didnt read anything from what is above but :
what do u guys think if the league will be like hm... every single clan have to play 4 official matches with the other clans where ppl wont say anymore "they won coz they played more ladders.." and it will be more fair for the inactive ones and if a clan win a ladder 3pts
if its tie 1 point for both /loser 0 point. The aim wont be reching 100 pts anymore but the clan who has more points after that all clans played there matches will be the winner
and from my own opinion all official matches should be broadcasted for many reasons like making in the end of the season a video "best moments or smth like it" and there will be more prices eg: "best killer" /"clan who has more kills"/"clan who has more deaths" more funny stuffs.if admins like the idea I have all a system of rules in my mind just contact me
you're best jazz A ManCx
cpt.aimane@yahoo.com
aiman_94kim@hotmail.com
aimane.jazzer = skype
I can be in one of those x) add them all
[GpW]Urbs
[GpW]
avatar
JJnet user
Posts: 377
54
#58 | [q]2012-03-17 14:14
I dunno Glados, seems to me that there is nothing wrong with the Y cw that you mention.
The whole point of this system is to force cw's cuz otherwise nobody would ever play them. So IMO the goal was achievedemo
And Y didn't abuse the rule.
Grytolle
avatar

JJnet admin
Posts: 847
87
#59 | [q]2012-03-17 14:36
Quote:
if admins like the idea I have all a system of rules in my mind just contact me
you're best jazz A ManCx
cpt.aimane@yahoo.com
aiman_94kim@hotmail.com
aimane.jazzer = skype
I can be in one of those x) add them all

Please start a new thread with your proposal!
Lithium
aEs
avatar
JJnet user
Posts: 1758
107
#60 | [q]2012-03-17 14:40
Quote:
how about this honestly I didnt read anything from what is above but :
what do u guys think if the league will be like hm... every single clan have to play 4 official matches with the other clans where ppl wont say anymore "they won coz they played more ladders.." and it will be more fair for the inactive ones and if a clan win a ladder 3pts
if its tie 1 point for both /loser 0 point. The aim wont be reching 100 pts anymore but the clan who has more points after that all clans played there matches will be the winner
and from my own opinion all official matches should be broadcasted for many reasons like making in the end of the season a video "best moments or smth like it" and there will be more prices eg: "best killer" /"clan who has more kills"/"clan who has more deaths" more funny stuffs.if admins like the idea I have all a system of rules in my mind just contact me
you're best jazz A ManCx
cpt.aimane@yahoo.com
aiman_94kim@hotmail.com
aimane.jazzer = skype
I can be in one of those x) add them all


Not a bad idea, but it's too much change for the ladder system.


We rode on the winds of the rising storm,
We ran to the sounds of the thunder.
We danced among the lightning bolts,
and tore the world asunder.
MasterSven
[CDF]
avatar
JJnet user
Posts: 398
41
#61 | [q]2012-03-17 14:46
A ladder system is actually a league where you constantly play against the teams above and below you, so you only swap 1 rank after each match.
Lithium
aEs
avatar
JJnet user
Posts: 1758
107
#62 | [q]2012-03-17 14:48
I totally forgot about the meaning of the word xd

Yeah, MS is right. It isn't a ladder league anymore.


We rode on the winds of the rising storm,
We ran to the sounds of the thunder.
We danced among the lightning bolts,
and tore the world asunder.
aimane
CX
avatar
JJnet user
Posts: 68
14
#63 | [q]2012-03-17 15:23
so lets make it a ladder league again
Grytolle
avatar

JJnet admin
Posts: 847
87
#64 | [q]2012-03-17 15:28
That'd run completely counter to either activity or the freedom to say no to games (which is basically what aEs have been talking about for 2 pages now)
GLaDOS
aEs
avatar
JJnet user
Posts: 123
28
#65 | [q]2012-03-17 16:21
Quote:
I dunno Glados, seems to me that there is nothing wrong with the Y cw that you mention.
The whole point of this system is to force cw's cuz otherwise nobody would ever play them. So IMO the goal was achievedemo
And Y didn't abuse the rule.


You're still not understanding, Urbs. People like you are the reason I can't trust the admins anymore about what is considered abuse and what isn't. I am saying that the rule that you have 3 refuses at all is useless and has no effect whatsoever since any clan could force you to play a CW against them by challenging you three times in a row. The paragraph could be changed to "you can not refuse CW challenges if you have more than 20 points" and it would still work exactly the same way as now.

You wonder what is wrong with that CW? Well, as you probably know, RA rapidly closed down and reincarnated, especially around the time the CW was played. After they closed down their previous clan that had a decent amount of points, if I remember right, they founded Y and used the loophole in the 3 refuse rule to challenge CDF three times in a row and get a guaranteed win, as they had several much more skillful players than CDF had at that time.
This could be abused by any clan with more or less skilled players to forcefully take out clans in the middle point range (such as the current state of aEs), as the mid-range clan will lose 20 points rather than a nomrally appropriate lower number, due to the higher rank difference. Any skilled clan who would want to take out a clan with 20-30 points would simply create a new clan, challenge their target three times, win the clanwar (due to the skill difference, of course), bringing the targetted clan down to 0-10 points. The winning players would either continue in their new clan or return to the original clan.

This is exactly what happened when Y challenged CDF. No really skilled players were available at that time, so RA's members exploited that and founded Y to take CDF's points.

So, IMO, the only goal that was achieved was easy 20 points for Y and a great loss for CDF. I do not see what you can find so perfectly fair about this, Urbs.
Grytolle
avatar

JJnet admin
Posts: 847
87
#66 | [q]2012-03-17 16:41
Are you sure that happened under the current refusal rules? Either way, propose some rules to limit the abusive possibilities (just allowing 5 refusals won't change a thing)
[GpW]Urbs
[GpW]
avatar
JJnet user
Posts: 377
54
#67 | [q]2012-03-17 16:50
Well every competition is darwinian, so it's not really about fair and not fair, it's about winning isn't it?

Never said it was nice and fairemo

And what's the whole thing about trust got to do with anything? I'm not even an admin ffs.

I'm also not sure what RA had to do with Y. Did RA challenge 1st and then Y challenged u afterwards?

And also, I don't see the scenario you proposed ever working in practice. RA didn't want to destroy CDF now did it? It wasn't a plot, as u make it out to be. They went inactive and the same people came back a couple of months later with a new clan. Then they, ofc, went for an easy target. While that isn't very honorable, it isn't that big of a deal. Sure you lost 20 points, but at the end of the day, it's not like you didn't know you were sooner or later gonna get challenged by somebody who would rightfully think they belong higher than you on the ladder? (Which skillwise they do, so again, no problem).

And how the hell is the 3 cw challenges rule a loophole by itself? You're also thinking about it in the wrong way, it's not there to protect the "rights" of lower-skilled clans to get a good placement on the ladder. It is in fact quite the opposite; the rule is there for genuinely strong clans to be able to do a cw here and there to show who is in fact the strongest. that's why I said the rule worked perfectly. It's just that you don't agree with the fact that a clan should be forced to do cw's. Making the whole thing sound as if high skilled clans are out to get middle skilled clans is bs. They are here, however, to compete. And to occasionally flaunt their warteam.

If you trully play the ladder only for the fun of it, you don't care about losing points in cw's.

There is one option that hasn't been put on the table yet (I think). Mby just make the penalties for the losers a bit lower.

But you can't have a system in place, where mediocre clans could grab all the points and then just refuse the 5 cws in a row. Or worse, even all of them. There's hardly any cw's as it is (that's why jj2wc is always so fun, cuz you have a weekly bonanza of top jj2 action).


GLaDOS
aEs
avatar
JJnet user
Posts: 123
28
#68 | [q]2012-03-17 16:51
The CW refusal rule has not been changed between the CW in question and now, so it did happen under these refusal rules and could happen again at any time. I propose that rather than limiting it to three CW refuses, it should be limited to refusing clanwar challenges from three different clans that are at least one month old each (to prevent exploiting it through creating multiple new clans), or even just two different clans if you want to be a bit stricter and enforce some more CWs.
Another option would be disallowing newly formed clans from challenging one clan over and over.

In its current state, the rule is simply misleading, as there is no "cooldown" for re-challenging the same clan and CW challenge spam can be used to effectively bypass the rule.

[edit after being ninja'd by urbs:]
RA closed down and founded Y after a while, and one of the first actions they did was challenging CDF to a CW. After refusing the challenge, CDF was simply re-challenged, and when that challenge was also refused, CDF was once again re-challenged, now without the option of refusing due to the 3 refuse rule. This happened over a timespan of about one week. The CW was scheduled to 30 days after the final challenge, I think. So Y essentially got a kickstart of 20 additional points with the bonus of getting CDF out of the way.

The reason I consider the current rule ineffective and useless is mentioned above the [edit].
[GpW]Urbs
[GpW]
avatar
JJnet user
Posts: 377
54
#69 | [q]2012-03-17 16:52
ohh and im pretty sure season 1 had different rules about cw's.

And Y actually died partly because they weren't able to get a team ready for CC (they really weren't half as organized and single bent on cdf as some make them out to be, tbh, nobody ever cared much about cdf contrary to their belief).
[GpW]Urbs
[GpW]
avatar
JJnet user
Posts: 377
54
#70 | [q]2012-03-17 16:55
Ok, so you want a rule where one clan can't just do a challenge 3 times?

But why?

If I really want to do a cw vs aes, cuz I think I might get a victory, or cuz there is a grudge, or cuz I just want to show off (point being, it doesnt matter if my motivation is evil or good), I can't force you to do a cw with me?

That's not a rule I would endorse. You see, I want to be able to force you to do a cw with me, should I wish it.

EDIT: but that scenario is very unlikely now isn't it? Why the hell would I go through the trouble of doing this, unless I'd zealously hate Aes Sedai?
GLaDOS
aEs
avatar
JJnet user
Posts: 123
28
#71 | [q]2012-03-17 17:00
Then why does the rule we have now even exist? If any clan should be able to forcefully challenge any other clan with 20+ points, you could just forbid CW refuses altogether and remove the misleading rule.

Also, I am pretty sure that CDF has been a long-time enemy of RA (and thus Y).
[GpW]Urbs
[GpW]
avatar
JJnet user
Posts: 377
54
#72 | [q]2012-03-17 17:03
Good pointemo

I see it as a strategic option, because if ur challenged u can w8 for the last day to decline. And if you're really afraid of the other team, you w8 for them to do it 2 more times, and train 24 / 7 in between (im exaggerating, but the point being, it can give you time to get your warteam in order).

Otherwise, fair point.


EDIT: again, I'm not saying my logic is fair/honorable etc. And I'm not saying rules should endorse such a cynical approach. But I do prefer a rule that forces cw's than vice versa.
GLaDOS
aEs
avatar
JJnet user
Posts: 123
28
#73 | [q]2012-03-17 17:25
I would actually be fine with the rule being changed to no refusals at all if you have a certain amount of points, I am arguing that the current wording of the rule is simply too misleading as to what it does. It barely makes any difference if you have 3 refuses compared to no refuses at all if one clan can just spam challenges at you.
[GpW]Urbs
[GpW]
avatar
JJnet user
Posts: 377
54
#74 | [q]2012-03-17 17:35
Ya barely.

I'm not sure how to fix it. For us the system has been good because it eliminated the discussion about cw's with some clans we didn't get along with and which we didn't trust (by refusing the 1st time and accepting the 2nd time, when we were sure we had time).
wKtK
avatar

JJnet user
Posts: 707
121
#75 | [q]2012-03-17 17:57
Like I said earlier, the current CW system if fine imo...

...except that on the refusal rule, I have to agree with GLaDOS here. It is just useles...
Don't get this wrong, I'm sure a lot of ppl on here show respect by not doing the following, but unless I'm mistaken about the rules, the following could happen:

during an imaginary season:
aEs: nubz, let's say 21 points.
random_clan: pwnz0rs, 82 points.

aEs challenges random_clan.
random_clan refuses at 15:00;

aes rechallenges at 15:02;
random_clan refuses at 15:15;

aes rechallenges at 15:18;
random_clan can't refuse anymore...

Nice time gain of <20 minutes, of which most is spent clicking [refuse] on this site and raging on the forums.
And I'm sure some admins would say something about this, the point is: This rule has no real benefit/purpose if a strategy like this is allowed...

I would vote for a challenge-cooldown per clan, per refusal. The time I'll leave to the implementers to discuss.


Nostalgia warning, well, at least if you're one of those ppl...
  Page: 1 2 3 4 5