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.
Grytolle asked me to check out existing rules and try to improve them. So here they go:
[i][b]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.[/i][/b]
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.
[b][i]§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.[/b][/i]
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][b][i]Gry: The coin flipping procedure should be formalized for clanwars, or replaced with the "challenged decides" system that we have for ladder matches[/b][/i][/quote]
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:
[b][i]§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.[/b][/i]
It should be the same for choosing the map order IMO.
[b][i]§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.[/b][/i]
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).
The whole point of the cw rule was to force people to play. We hardly have any cw's as it is. And a clan should not be able to get away with not playing a cw for the whole season (which could well happen with your proposal).
The whole point of the cw rule was to force people to play. We hardly have any cw's as it is. And a clan should not be able to get away with not playing a cw for the whole season (which could well happen with your proposal).
Do we really need clanwars that much? Season deciding ones are fine, but random power hungry clans tend to challenge weaker ones in order to get a lot of points.
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.
Do we really need clanwars that much? Season deciding ones are fine, but random power hungry clans tend to challenge weaker ones in order to get a lot of points.
CWs can be declined so easily like that. It will be of no use to challenge a clan anymore and the point is, as Urbs said, to give other clans the chance to steal the number 1's (or whatever) points.. So if a weaker clan is ranked first cause of huge activity, there's indeed a rule for that to at least make the ladder a bit based on skill..
(And really, most active clans will be ready for CWs cause they play so much then )
I do agree we could just apply it for, say, the first 3 clans. Make it less strict for the ranked 4th and 5th etc..
I also believe there should be a rule against the AMOUNT of stops *cough* without a reason or whatever
Other than that, Gry meant who picks a level first.. Not the colour. Colour is indeed chosen by the challenged. The clan picking the level won't decide the colour they use in that level. It is decided by the opponent. There are usually fights of which clans' level gets played first. "NO, not ours, we play yours first!" etc etc..
It should also be made clear that the veto does count for clanwars as well. I don't think it's in the rules..
CWs can be declined so easily like that. It will be of no use to challenge a clan anymore and the point is, as Urbs said, to give other clans the chance to steal the number 1's (or whatever) points.. So if a weaker clan is ranked first cause of huge activity, there's indeed a rule for that to at least make the ladder a bit based on skill..
(And really, most active clans will be ready for CWs cause they play so much then :) )
I do agree we could just apply it for, say, the first 3 clans. Make it less strict for the ranked 4th and 5th etc..
I also believe there should be a rule against the AMOUNT of stops *cough* without a reason or whatever :)
Other than that, Gry meant who picks a level first.. Not the colour. Colour is indeed chosen by the challenged. The clan picking the level won't decide the colour they use in that level. It is decided by the opponent. There are usually fights of which clans' level gets played first. "NO, not ours, we play yours first!" etc etc..
It should also be made clear that the veto does count for clanwars as well. I don't think it's in the rules..
Edited my post, I was still thinking
And well, is there?
§10.1 The match host will pause the match whenever a player overflows or crashes. The pause may last no longer than 5 minutes (enough time to reboot and reconnect). The maximum total technical pause time is 10 minutes per map per team.
§10.2 A map can be paused no more than 5 times for the same problem of the same player (i.e. repeating lag bursts) in the entire match. After that, the player has to play with his problem or be replaced.
§10.3 Players are allowed to pause themselves in case of visible technical problems of a player.
§10.4 Problems with a voice communication program being used are no valid reasons to pause a match. The admin will immediately unpause if there is no valid reason to pause.
§11 Tactical time outs are allowed (max 3 min and only once per map).
I don't see any that states 'You are only allowed to stop 1 time for reasons like 'IDIOT TEAMMATE FU WTF ARE YOU DOING :@"
Edited my post, I was still thinking :)
And well, is there?
§10.1 The match host will pause the match whenever a player overflows or crashes. The pause may last no longer than 5 minutes (enough time to reboot and reconnect). The maximum total technical pause time is 10 minutes per map per team.
§10.2 A map can be paused no more than 5 times for the same problem of the same player (i.e. repeating lag bursts) in the entire match. After that, the player has to play with his problem or be replaced.
§10.3 Players are allowed to pause themselves in case of visible technical problems of a player.
§10.4 Problems with a voice communication program being used are no valid reasons to pause a match. The admin will immediately unpause if there is no valid reason to pause.
§11 Tactical time outs are allowed (max 3 min and only once per map).
I don't see any that states 'You are only allowed to stop 1 time for reasons like 'IDIOT TEAMMATE FU WTF ARE YOU DOING :@"
It should also be made clear that the veto does count for clanwars as well. I don't think it's in the rules..
The rule isn't clear enough. It should be made clear indeed.
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.
Ah, sorry. That should be added as well.
[quote]It should also be made clear that the veto does count for clanwars as well. I don't think it's in the rules..[/quote]
The rule isn't clear enough. It should be made clear indeed.
§11 Tactical time outs are allowed (max 3 min and only once per map).
I don't see any that states 'You are only allowed to stop 1 time for reasons like 'IDIOT TEAMMATE FU WTF ARE YOU DOING :@"
[quote]§11 Tactical time outs are allowed (max 3 min and only once per map).
I don't see any that states 'You are only allowed to stop 1 time for reasons like 'IDIOT TEAMMATE FU WTF ARE YOU DOING :@"[/quote]
:P
The clanwar "3-refuse-rule" in its current state is flawed and has actually been exploited before (I was affected by it myself). If you get challenged by a clan and refuse that challenge, they can simple re-challenge you two more times in succession and then you are forced to play the CW. This essentially gives you no chance to refuse if your challenger really insists on playing with you.
In my opinion, this issue should be taken care of, either by only counting challenges from different clans or adding some kind of "cooldown" to prevent one clan from challenging another one over and over. (not talking about the existing 30-day rule here, if I read correctly, it only applies to already scheduled clanwars)
[yay for accidentally hitting delete instead of edit]
The clanwar "3-refuse-rule" in its current state is flawed and has actually been exploited before (I was affected by it myself). If you get challenged by a clan and refuse that challenge, they can simple re-challenge you two more times in succession and then you are forced to play the CW. This essentially gives you no chance to refuse if your challenger really insists on playing with you.
In my opinion, this issue should be taken care of, either by only counting challenges from different clans or adding some kind of "cooldown" to prevent one clan from challenging another one over and over. (not talking about the existing 30-day rule here, if I read correctly, it only applies to already scheduled clanwars)
[size=8][yay for accidentally hitting delete instead of edit][/size]
(This post has been helpful to 1 of the forumers.)
With the amount of cw's played I think that was the general idea Glados.
How about this one, if a clan doesn't play at least one cw in a season they lose 10(20? 30?, or a % of their) points
With the amount of cw's played I think that was the general idea Glados.
How about this one, if a clan doesn't play at least one cw in a season they lose 10(20? 30?, or a % of their) points:)
It would be cool that the clans on second and third place can get medals too, like how CX won a golden medal, maybe IB can win a silver one and T3 win a bronze.
"It is amazing what can be accomplished when nobody cares about who gets the credit.” ~Robert Yates
It would be cool that the clans on second and third place can get medals too, like how CX won a golden medal, maybe IB can win a silver one and T3 win a bronze. :P
(This post has been helpful to 1 of the forumers.)
> Urbs:
There simply is no point in allowing 3 refuses if they can easily be circumvented anyway, in my opinion.
About your suggestion: deducting points at the end of a season for not having played any CWs would only affect the #1 clan as soon as they hit 100 points, right? It wouldn't work anyway if it was different, since deducting points from clans at the end of the season has no effect, as there already is a winning clan.
I for myself do not care about points, when I play ladder matches, it is either to not let down my clanmates or just to have some fun competitively playing the game (although currently I am too busy to play most of the time). But to me, clanwars mean extensive training, which is not really that much fun, and the risk of point loss and/or humiliation when losing the match. As such, I would support some way to opt out of the whole clanwar system, even if it would mean the inability to win the season, and I do not think a point punishment is the right way to do this, but rather, as Urbs implied, the condition for winning the season being not only reaching 100 points, but also having participated in at least one CW. I am not exactly sure if my clanmates share the same view, this is just my personal opinion.
> Urbs:
There simply is no point in allowing 3 refuses if they can easily be circumvented anyway, in my opinion.
About your suggestion: deducting points at the end of a season for not having played any CWs would only affect the #1 clan as soon as they hit 100 points, right? It wouldn't work anyway if it was different, since deducting points from clans at the end of the season has no effect, as there already is a winning clan.
I for myself do not care about points, when I play ladder matches, it is either to not let down my clanmates or just to have some fun competitively playing the game (although currently I am too busy to play most of the time). But to me, clanwars mean extensive training, which is not really that much fun, and the risk of point loss and/or humiliation when losing the match. As such, I would support some way to opt out of the whole clanwar system, even if it would mean the inability to win the season, and I do not think a point punishment is the right way to do this, but rather, as Urbs implied, the condition for winning the season being not only reaching 100 points, but also having participated in at least one CW. I am not exactly sure if my clanmates share the same view, this is just my personal opinion.
Oh right, I guess flaming each other over and over counts as a tactical time out.
Sometimes it can take longer than 3 min to explain my team how much im better than them, perhaps incrasing the time more than 3 min?
Player: Air!
Air: ?
[quote]Oh right, I guess flaming each other over and over counts as a tactical time out. :)[/quote]
Sometimes it can take longer than 3 min to explain my team how much im better than them:flex:, perhaps incrasing the time more than 3 min? :P
If you win the ladder bcs of CWs it shows your skills, if you win it bcs of ladder matches only it shows youre an addict. (and perhaps a coward as well)
CW's are nice, winning them can give you the same result as:
Ladder?
Lader?
Leder?
Ledder?
Laddera?
Ladr?
Leader?
Laeder?
Leeder?
Laader?
Ladder?
Lader?
Leder?
Ledder?
Laddera?
Ladr?
Leader?
Laeder?
Leeder?
Laader?
If you win the ladder bcs of CWs it shows your skills, if you win it bcs of ladder matches only it shows youre an addict. (and perhaps a coward as well)
Nothing wrong with ladders, but I agree with MS, I don't see what the big deal is with this big fear of cw's. So you lose a cw, it's not going to be the only time you lose in life
But CW's are the competitive pinnacle whereas ladders can be tken more lightly. As such CW's give you a much bigger rush, and they're also way more nervous than regular matches.
Nothing wrong with ladders, but I agree with MS, I don't see what the big deal is with this big fear of cw's. So you lose a cw, it's not going to be the only time you lose in life:)
But CW's are the competitive pinnacle whereas ladders can be tken more lightly. As such CW's give you a much bigger rush, and they're also way more nervous than regular matches.
It's not about playing CWs, it's about being FORCED to play them.
We are a weak clan and it takes us a lot of time to earn 20 points. When we do, what happens? Some randomer thinks "lololol nubs" and challenges us! Most of our members do not have enough time to train for a pointless CW. It would have been different if the rule applied for the first ranked only or for the first three.
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.
It's not about playing CWs, it's about being FORCED to play them.
We are a weak clan and it takes us a lot of time to earn 20 points. When we do, what happens? Some randomer thinks "lololol nubs" and challenges us! Most of our members do not have enough time to train for a pointless CW. It would have been different if the rule applied for the first ranked only or for the first three.
The 20 points rule isn't there for nothing, it's not just about the top 3.
Clan's way stronger (or at least with more points than you) probably don't even want to challenge you because beating you wouldn't give them enough points.
CDF challenged you and just won in the tiebreaker, I don't see why you call yourselves weak.
The 20 points rule isn't there for nothing, it's not just about the top 3.
Clan's way stronger (or at least with more points than you) probably don't even want to challenge you because beating you wouldn't give them enough points.
CDF challenged you and just won in the tiebreaker, I don't see why you call yourselves weak.
Even if weaker clans challenge you, it's still annoying. You can't refuse, but you can't even waste your time on playing the CW. And if they somehow beat you, everyone's like "omg lol nubs". There should be less pressure for the clans who do not wish to win the 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.
Even if weaker clans challenge you, it's still annoying. You can't refuse, but you can't even waste your time on playing the CW. And if they somehow beat you, everyone's like "omg lol nubs". There should be less pressure for the clans who do not wish to win the season.
The only weaker active clan that could challenge you is ES, you shouldn't worry about inactive or fake clans challenging you, you dont have to play those matches.
The only weaker active clan that could challenge you is ES, you shouldn't worry about inactive or fake clans challenging you, you dont have to play those matches.
I'm trying to figure out what the implications would be of allowing you to refuse challenges from higher ranked clans endlessly, but my cognitive department is currently understaffed
Noone's been like "omg lol nubs"...
I'm trying to figure out what the implications would be of allowing you to refuse challenges from higher ranked clans endlessly, but my cognitive department is currently understaffed
JJnet user
JJnet user
JJnet user
)
JJnet user
JJnet user
JJnet user
, perhaps incrasing the time more than 3 min? 
JJnet user