Quote from: Komito on June 27, 2012, 10:21 AM
I am saying it is selfish because you are choosing your own "fun" over truth and reality, which would be the fastest time by the laws of physics.

Fun is more important than truth isnt it? But that's a different topic.

What if both players are equally fast in the replay, to the 0.01 sec? Do you get a stopwatch that measures 0.0001 secs to declare the winner? Prolly not.. I just choose to go with the in-game timer, which almost always performs well and when it doesn't I call it a draw and start again.

Question is how complicated do I want things to get?
I think it's best for the community and the league if we keep things as simple as possible. Any additional rule makes it harder for new people to engage and games more demanding and complicated for players who are already here.
This rule isn't necessary IMO, so it's best not to add it. And like I said, if Mablak wants to check times he can propose it before the game.

Complicated? You're being over theoretic here. First of all, RR is not a noob scheme, if you're a noob and you have to play it, chances are, it's your opponent's pick, and if he's picked it, chances are, he's better than you at it, if you're a noob that is, with all this in mind, the scenarios of a draw are incredibly unlikely, and in the event that they occur I don't think a noob would be extremely surprised if he was informed that in these cases replays are checked to get a more precise time, I don't consider than an unreasonable demand and I'm a very reasonable man.

This rule would only affect the highest level of the competition, which kind of justifies the elitism of the rule. Bringing newcomers to the argument is irrelevant as much as the "it's more work" point. You're thinking into it too much and are losing perspective on how it would actually work, in real life.

HHC, the reason that some people don't care about changing this is just because they never even considered that a win could really be a loss in clanners. There's no getting around that this situation needs fixing. There is no way this would be that much of an inconvenience for you, since it would happen seldom, especially for people who don't rr much, so I really have to throw the 'it's a hassle' argument out the window. Not to mention that some opponents would still be going by whole secs.

Flori, nobody is getting 'f@#!ed' by going by exact times. People should just always be playing assuming their exact time will be counted, which is basically already how people play. Your problem is just with people's expectations, but if they know exact times may be counted, they won't have those expectations, and they won't have a feeling of getting f@#!ed.

The thing is : People like me will never ask to check milliseconds. People like you will ask everytime.
And all the rest and the majority or people will ask to check miliseconds only if they think they have more chance to get a better time.
So yes, I get f@#!ed, and people that will never ask for replay will be f@#!ed too.
And in 1-2 years, we'll all ask for milliseconds, coz we'll be tired to be f@#!ed.

To all those who say the time in the replay is something like "the one and only truth":
It's a question of how things are defined:

Time in the world as we know it is continuous, in Worms however time is discrete. 1 Second is split up in 50 frames, each lasting 0.02 secs.
The ingame clock discretizes time even more. You can only see whole seconds. So, why should this definition of ingame time be worse than the other? Because its just farer away from continuous time?
Well, then what about finishing itself, if you hit your head before finishing, the timer will stop earlier as if it would when you reach the finish without stopping the timer.
Measuring the time for your run is defined as either the time where the timer stopped before you reached finish or at the exact frame when you hit the Finish word (or something similar depending on the map). This definition is as far away from the truth or reality as measuring ingame time in whole seconds is.

So, imo there is no good reason for either side. It's just a matter of taste. I'm fine with either having the rule or just having everything as its now.

Random, I feel what you saying but I really stand by the point that by the laws of physics, the faster time should win indefinately.

You could possibly be cheating someone out of a win, even if innocently...

Would you really feel comfortable knowing you may have some wins that aren't really wins? Seeing as you are such a competitive player, quite possibly one of the most competitive ever...

Most likely people will still go by whole seconds in 1v1, plus I thought it was mentioned that you would have to say before the game started if you wanted to go by milliseconds if need be... that could work for or against you.

stop talking about notching and top hiding in roper... that has nothing to do with this.  Those things do not deal with the objective winner of the game losing due to a loophole in the rules.

Like mablak said, the winning team could be 1.96 seconds faster and still lose the game WITHOUT THE CHANCE OF A DRAW/REPLAY.  Here's a mental image for you - a worm finishes a ttrr and you immediately count 2 seconds (1.96) and then the other worm finishes.... and that other worm wins? 

You guys preach about how draws are so fun, yet in a situation like that there is NO draw and the team that was NEARLY 2 SECONDS FASTER loses the game.

If some people can't bother to play people who "nitpick" then I can't be bothered to play people who would be fine cheating me out of a win if my team was nearly 2 seconds faster.

If you're upset someone is checking a replay and it turns out they beat you by .6 seconds, that's too bad honey, they were faster than you, they deserve the win in a RACING game.

I still haven't heard a compelling argument yet that would keep a rule that not only denies a team that was 1.96 seconds faster the win, but denies them the oh so glorious and fun draw

You guys draw the line where you see fit though.

1.11 + 1.10 < 1.19 + 1.09

you guys have to at least come to a compromise.  I would settle for a rule that says 1v1 goes by whole numbers but 2v2 replays need to be checked if there is a 1 second difference in total times.  Whenever there is a 1 second difference in total times, there is a possibility that the winning team loses and there is no draw and that is f@#!ed up

i will start to calculate thousandth milliseconds with my stopwatch soon

You have good points Shyguy.
I propose this :
1v1 : NO rules change.
2v2 : IF the time are close by 1sec, a clan can ask for miliseconds (no need to say it before the game ; between or after games still work) and :
- in case of a score like : 50.98 and 50.98 vs 50.00 and 50.00 ; which makes a total of 101.96 vs 100.00. We apply the usual 1v1 rule : 101 vs 100. Team 2 Win.
- in case of a score like 50.98 and 50.98 vs 50.00 and 51.00 ; total score is 101.96 vs 101.00. We apply RR 1v1 rule and its a draw.
Not fair yes i know its not physical low etc etc but we have doing this for ages looking only for seconds.

This adding rule is a rectification of the old rule that look only for second times, but here working 100% of times.

wow, this was way more polarizing than I thought when I was the first reply to this thread.


I was all for just using exact times always (well, as exact as replays allow) in all games, 2v2 and 1v1, but as we can see 8 pages later, many are vocal for keeping ties, (at least for 1v1 mainly).


So I'll adjust my stance: all 1v1 stays the same except when both players agree to use exact times before starting.  This seems fair, as there's definitely many who still like playing again after ties (or just don't want to check), and it allows the chance for two people who like exact times to meet.

as for 2v2, I feel the opposite should happen, due to the obvious flaw of a team being 1.96 slower yet still winning.  We let this slide in 1v1 because it's only ever a maximum of 0.98 between two players with a possible tie.  In 2v2, there's no excuse to let this increase to 1.96 where not only does it introduce possible ties, it also introduces possible slower teams winning when they should 'tie' or even LOSE.  all 2v2 should use exact times except when both clans agree to use whole seconds before starting.

Hmm Franz, if you're gonna do implement this, which I don't like, then I think it would be better to have the same for 1vs1 ánd 2vs2. Otherwise it's another 2 whole blocks of text added to the rules and another thing to agree upon before a game. Either do it completely, or not at all.

DAMN IT I PRESSED CTRL A and a key all deleted 2 f@#!ING TIME..
Anyway i was saying :

HHC there is no 2 blocks to add. Its simple.
In 1v1, we always could agree before the game to play with milliseconds, nothing forbid it, so nothing to add in rules.
We just have to add something like : "In 2v2, if overall times are close to 1s, and one team ask for, you have to check replay, recalculate both times using the milliseconds. Once did, apply the usual rule and look both times stopping on seconds."

Random: I think you're just making an argument that maybe head-hitting finishes need to be done away with, which is probably worth talking about in another topic.

Flori: The only reason people go by whole seconds is for convenience, it doesn't make sense at all to check the exact times and then not go by them. Also, it would be much more logical go by a 1 second margin of error regardless of the truncated times, so that 105.5 and 106.5 would be considered a draw.

But if you're going to actually check the replay, the only thing that makes sense is going by exact times. If you're gonna stay in-game, the only way to make sure winners don't become losers is to say that 2v2 draws include equal times, and times with 1 second difference.

Also something to consider: ties may have a suspense factor, but they always favor the better player, and the larger the margin of error in times we consider draws, the more it favors them. Suppose you have an 82.5% chance of winning, and 17.5% chance of losing against a particular player. Then suppose a rule creates a 5% chance of a draw, and let's say the probabilities go to 80% chance of winning, 5% chance of drawing, and 15% chance of losing. In actuality, we might not subtract 2.5% from wins and losses evenly, but I think this works assuming both players have similarly shaped normal distributions of their times.

This 5% chance of drawing implies playing another game, so you could rephrase it as "5% chance of (80% chance of winning, 5% chance of drawing, and 15% chance of losing)". Or to just focus on the winning percentage, it becomes .8 + .05(.8 + .05(.8...)), which can be written .8 + (.05)*(.8) + (.05^2)*(.8) + (.05^3)*(.8) +.... This is just a geometric series, .8*(summation from n = 0 to infinity of) .05^n. You might remember learning at one point that a geometric series reduces to 1/(1-r), where r is the ratio. So this sum is equal to .8/(1-.05) = .8421, so the real winning ratio is 84.21%.

The effects are minor, sure, but worth noting. It's pretty much just the same reason that more rounds usually allows the better player to come out on top, although unlike say intermediate, switching who goes first each time doesn't have much effect in RR.