Rules and Team Size Discussion

Ok, with the game going gold, its time to begin nailing down the guidelines for match play.

We support any form of competition, but we will shoot for ladders first. They are the best way to establish growth in the community and develop things.

Savage introduces an odd set of circumstances. The games can be very short of very long depending on many factors. We have discussed the following options:

1) 1 map with no time limit.
2) Best of 3 maps with a 30 minute time limit.

The TL is the main issue. we need to find out if we want to use a TL and if it should be 30 mintues. I would be willing to bump it to 40 minutes if needed, but nothing past that. 3 maps at 40 minutes makes for a possible 2 hour match and thats very long for some.

The next issue is the races. Human v Human, Beast v Beast, or mixed. I prefer mixed to be honest.

We can mix up the selection process and allow teams to choose race and sides (team 1 or team 2) of maps. Here is a hypothetical arrangement:

- Best of 3 maps, all randomly selected from a set map pool.
- Defender (the higher ranked team) selects the race for maps 1 and 3 and the side for map 2.
- Attacker (the lower ranked team) picks the sides for maps 1 and 3 and the race for map 2.

As I said, this is simply one option. Lets discuss other choices we may have.





]CkB[Polaris
TeamWarfare Senior Staff

i prefer the multiple maps approach just because it allows teams to have the opportunity to compete in different environments. a team may have a horrible strategy for one map and get spanked but have a good one for another map and win.





]CkB[xeno
Teamwarfare Director of Business Development "Politics is a very rewarding profession. If you succeed there are many rewards, if you disgrace yourself you can always write a book."

"Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first."

"It's true hard work never killed anybody, but I figure, why take the chance?"

Ronald Reagan

I agree with Xeno. Multiple maps would be far more interesting- but like you said Polaris, the overall time for the entire match would be an issue.

Personally, I think 40 minutes would be fine for a round (if it is the multiple map approach). 30 mins is too short, IMO, at least from Beta experience, but an hour would be way too long for 3 rounds. So I think 40 would be pretty good... as long as teams are willing to play for about 2 and a half hours (including halftime, I assume).

I agree that 30 mins is too short. We want to avoid matches going full TL as much as possible and 40 minutes "feels" right.

3 maps, 40 mins a pop. Sounds good to me.

]CkB[Polaris
TeamWarfare Senior Staff

40 sounds pretty good

Janus
Teamwarfare Operations Manager

yes 3 maps is the best and let clans pick the side they want to be.

I like the 40 min time limit.. The Only question I have is how does the game decide witch team wins if both Strongholds are standing.

I've played were My base was at full health and the time ran out and we still lost the map. SO I just was wondering what the guide lines will be if that happens

Post edited by AngryNipple at 9/3/2003 12:20:53 PM

AngryNipple
TeamWarFare AA US Ladder Admin

I believe at one time it was just simply that whichever team had taken the most damage to their stronghold in the game (regardless if you repaired it or not) lost at the end of the time limit. There was also Sudden Death at one time... I'm not exactly sure what happens in RC4 though.

Another option with the races is each team picks their race for each map.

My concern with that is that we will find a trend to all beast or all human over time for various reasons. If at all possible I would like to use all elements of the game.

Additionally there is something to be said for having teams need to excel in both human and beast in order to be considered top echelon.

]CkB[Polaris
TeamWarfare Senior Staff

I've liked the one map approach.

You could play one map and each team has to take turns playing on each side...

I am curious, if this game goes well will we see larger team sizes? I have been playing 12-16 players in matches since T2 came out. 10 just seems too small.

Originally posted by: Wolven Kin
I've liked the one map approach.
I am curious, if this game goes well will we see larger team sizes? I have been playing 12-16 players in matches since T2 came out. 10 just seems too small.

it's a possibility once the community is developing their own maps for gameplay. Many of the maps so far are too small to support much larger teams without it just turning into a team deathmatch.




]CkB[xeno
Teamwarfare Director of Business Development "Politics is a very rewarding profession. If you succeed there are many rewards, if you disgrace yourself you can always write a book."

"Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first."

"It's true hard work never killed anybody, but I figure, why take the chance?"

Ronald Reagan

I don't think map size is the problem- the problem is it'll be hard for Clans to have 12-16 people available on a match night, particularly if the match will last 2.5 hours.

I think a beter system would to keep the team sizes at the smaller teams that have been suggested (11v11 or whatever), and then if both clans have more people available during a match, to allow them the option to be able to play with more players if they wish (12v12, 13v13, 14v4, etc.).

Originally posted by: zA.Spaz
(12v12, 13v13, 14v4, etc.).

i dunno who would want to opt to play 14v4




]CkB[xeno
Teamwarfare Director of Business Development "Politics is a very rewarding profession. If you succeed there are many rewards, if you disgrace yourself you can always write a book."

"Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first."

"It's true hard work never killed anybody, but I figure, why take the chance?"

Ronald Reagan

1 map unlimited time, let each team choose its side.

duh!

Originally posted by: Choad Warrior
1 map unlimited time, let each team choose its side.

I was looking at that as the option when we went to a league format in addition to the ladders.

]CkB[Polaris
TeamWarfare Senior Staff

Yeah, 14v4...

That's like, one commander and three officers... what more do you need?

even 13v13. That would be 12v12 plus the one commander.

But that would require maps that fit that many. Since I haven't yet played the game I wouldn't know, I have to get all my info second hand from my clanmates who have played.

I've been playing in tribes2 matches for a long time, and every single one of them thats run ANY time over 2 hours usually hasto be rescheduled. I've gone throuhg many games where we have gone to sudden death OT for way too long.. and usually had to reschedule once it hit about midnight eastern(10est start time). I would definitely not consider this for the sake of alot of people that won't be posting here probably that will end up having to work or something. So if it's going to be 3 maps then.. 30 min map times apeice otherwise its going to be too much for most people, if you ask me. I would personally recommend going for the one map option with an unlimited time.

As for the races.. Please let teams choose their races, I don't remember an RTS that forced you to use a certain race.. If the game stays balanced then you will get a mixture, otherwise don't let someone get slammed by unfair races, especially if its going to be a one map thing. Currently, I feel like the races are fairly balanced.. There are a few things on beasts that I worry about severely.. i.e. summoners..

Team sizes, I 'd recommend 6v6 actually, the most sucessful games are pretty much low teamsize games. You can get more teams to compete against that way and it definitely creates some sort of an illusion of more competitive players, which even as an illusion I think works great.

6v6 is too small for many of the maps, so i don't think that would really work for a match. 10v10 is a pretty good size that won't lead to a team DM on smaller maps but also will help cover many areas on larger maps.

the only thing with the races is that they do need a little bit more balancing and they'd be perfect but as it is now, a good human team can still beat a beast team & vice versa.




]CkB[xeno
Teamwarfare Director of Business Development "Politics is a very rewarding profession. If you succeed there are many rewards, if you disgrace yourself you can always write a book."

"Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first."

"It's true hard work never killed anybody, but I figure, why take the chance?"

Ronald Reagan

Ok, Maybe 6v6 is too small... but I STRONGLY urge you guys to not overdo the timesize, something like 8v8 might work out just as good as 10v10 and still be able to accomplish what 10v10 did and help more teams get it together. So, you might want to consider putting the team size at the lowest number you think is possible to work at i.e. 8v8(IMO) and if thats not working right increase the team size.

Something else to note about the races.. if you permanently make them beast vs human.. your also removing alot of the strategy involved in the game. Anyone who has played an RTS like War3/StarCraft alot, realizes that what you must do in a Human vs Human match, and a Human vs Orc match are so totally different that its not even funny. This allows for players to start EXCELLING at a specific thing which is one of the things that was cool about tribes2 in b++ was that the maps were so diverse that teams could excel on one style of map vs another, and the truely great teams excelled at them all. Learning to fight each race vs different races regularly will definitely make people haveot excel at beast vs beast human vs humans humans vs beast etc and encourage more diversity in the game as long as the races can become balanced which it looks like they are trying their best to do..
Post edited by DeusMortis at 9/15/2003 4:10:24 PM

as far as races, i think that will need to be something specified before the match so that each team can prepare themselves for what they will be seeing.

]CkB[xeno
Teamwarfare Director of Business Development

There are other rules in the game besides just timelimit and team size...

For instance - the amount of cash that can be carried by FPS players. On my server (Krazo Dedicated) - I have that cash limit set to 100000000. Why? Well, because I kept getting annoyed that when I would kill someone and I had full cash I didn't get anything. Also - the low default limit kept people on my server from really using some of the other items (because they had to conserve their cash - especially if they might have to be a siege unit soon). Also if the limit is higher the commander doens't get requests as often.

Now - I'm not advocating that we make the limit as high as I have it on my server - but.... I do think that for clan matches it should be higher than 10000 (the default). Something closer to 20000 or 30000 would do just fine. It would keep people from getting rediculous amounts of money and being able to "throw away" siege units at will - but it will still give enough leway that buying some of the fringe items won't be out of question (and it will keep players off the commander's back).

Anyone else wanna chime in?

friedmud

As for teamsize - I think the 10v10 is just about right. My clan (Krazo) has been shooting for 10v10 all along and I think it is a good goal.

Teams need to make sure and have enough alternates around that they can deal with people not being able to play one night.

Also - for timelimits - I think 40 minutes is about right. 30 seems too limiting - I don't know how an extra 10 minutes is going to help but I think it will ;-)

friedmud

For money limits i've found that the 15k limit we have on SAoN server works pretty well. You can get 2-3 siege units in a row if your maxed but then your broke. And I dont care if people are steered away from siege because of lack of money, I am one of the biggest money requesters in the game because if I think I have any chance with a pult or shaman ill request them : ). Them being afraid to use too much just means I get to kill them easier : )

I agree that bumping the max $$ for players isnt a bad idea, but I dont see it going over the 15000 that Ark suggested.

The race situation will be effected by the upcoming patches. If the appropriate balancing is done we will look to have a BvH on all matches. That may change over time however, depending on the development team's efforts.

]CkB[Polaris
TeamWarfare Senior Staff

I think that if there is balancing, or imbalancing you should still give teams the freedom to select their own races. It will add alot of depth to the game if you do it this way, for reasons mentioned above. If you limit the race picking ability of the game, the strategical depth of the game will be lowered.

P.S. me and deus are one in the same..
Post edited by MudaFuka at 9/20/2003 7:05:59 PM

Well, the first problem is you cant have BvB. There is nothing to counter Mist Shroud against towers. 6th Sense works only for the player not for the towers so basically Mist eleiminates the use of towers.

]CkB[Polaris
TeamWarfare Senior Staff

Just a noob here but I thought sensors allowed the towers to see peeps using mist shroud.

lol thats the point, beast doesnt have sensors so mist shroud makes you invincible against spires. (For those that dont know sensors put red beam on all enemies and make it so that towers can see the invisible beasts)

Correct. And 6th Sense doesnt aid towers, only the player using it.

]CkB[Polaris
TeamWarfare Senior Staff

Wouldn't the obvious match format be to have first two matches as beasts vs humans. Each team play beasts once and humans once. If it's a tie after the two first matches you let the teams choose if the want to be beasts or humans.

So basically it would be like this:
Match 1: Team 1 Beasts vs Team 2 Humans
Match 2: Team 1 Humans vs Team 2 Beasts
Match 3: Team 1 any race vs Team 2 any race

Seems like the best ways to make matches fair and fun imo.

I like that idea very much. I would let the defender pick which map they had Beast for though.

My only consideration would be that BvB has problems due to the mist issue we were just discussing.

]CkB[Polaris
TeamWarfare Senior Staff

Originally posted by: Mats

So basically it would be like this:
Match 1: Team 1 Beasts vs Team 2 Humans
Match 2: Team 1 Humans vs Team 2 Beasts

i like this part but maybe it might seem to me
that match 3 should be hvh to even it all out
for the tiebreaker.
Post edited by xeno22 at 9/26/2003 8:03:20 AM


]CkB[xeno
Teamwarfare Director of Business Development

I guess hvh is best for last game currently, due to the problem with bvb matches. But I think that hvb should be allowed in last match if there's one team who phefer humans while the other phefer beasts. S2 really should fix so that beasts get some sensor like item. Either make healing towers work like sensors or better yet replace sixth sense with some sensor like item, like a magical glowing crystal u place on the ground.
Post edited by Mats at 9/26/2003 8:41:03 AM

The problem with that mats is that they want races to be unique, have their own strengths and weaknesses. If you just make a magic equivelent item of what the humans have it starts getting kinda lame in my opinion.

The new patch may solve most of these problems.

]CkB[Polaris
TeamWarfare Senior Staff

The problem need to be solved somehow and there isn't really many options to change it. Either one of the ideas I said above or to make it so that all beasts towers can detects mist shrouded enemies and attack them for the beginning. That would take away a little for possible tactical build-ups for beasts though, compared to having a item or specific tower detect mist shrouded enemies. Maybe having the healing tower detect mist shrouded is best option, since then it won't be exactly same as humans atleast.

Few clarifications requested:
- ff (team damage) on or off?
- max gold level?
- respawn time?
- has anybody built a config file for the settings?