"Host cups less talk", what has hosting cups changed in Classic really other than amount of girder in T17, and there was no need for cup for that change, as far as I rememeber.

Quote from: Free on March 02, 2013, 06:27 PM
"Host cups less talk", what has hosting cups changed in Classic really other than amount of girder in T17, and there was no need for cup for that change, as far as I rememeber.

how else r u going to get people to try ur new scheme then?

u host a cup with ur new scheme idea, ppl like it. maybe 1 season in trl, ppl like it some more. maybe enough players like it enough for it to make changes for bng in classic

Quote from: Husk on March 04, 2013, 08:02 AM

Quote from: Free on March 02, 2013, 06:27 PM
"Host cups less talk", what has hosting cups changed in Classic really other than amount of girder in T17, and there was no need for cup for that change, as far as I rememeber.

how else r u going to get people to try ur new scheme then?

u host a cup with ur new scheme idea, ppl like it. maybe 1 season in trl, ppl like it some more. maybe enough players like it enough for it to make changes for bng in classic

You replace it just like that. Sometimes there are logical arguments/changes, while asking the people just end up in pointless, biased flamewars.
And actually, you should host a cup with the current official scheme too, at the same time to be fair. I just doubt 1.: there are enough people who give enough shit to play all of these cups; 2.: it's the best solution. Democracy isn't always the answer. *
If you want to change something like this, just change it, wait for a few months and check how people's attitude develop.


*I mean this is democracy as well, the point is the form. A longitudinal study gives much better image in this case, than a sectional.

How 0.24 or 0.26 really matters ? Are you guys willing to invent a new way to notch so it sit exactly 0.24 ?
It is pretty clear that the way MI wrote the rule was to explain roughly that a sitter is a nade that does not move for a small amount of time which could be avoided.
Yes, if you take the rules by the words it is exactly 0.25 but isn't this league supposed to be for mature people that can sort things by themself and figure out that 0.24, 0.25 in this specific case shows it was a sitter ?

QuoteSitters are grenades that sit for...

Don't confuse "to sit" with "to move". Tha nade was moving sitted on a spot. A dog can be sitted in a place, and of course he can be moving his eyes, tail, head, but he's sitted. That nades was sitted, rolling/moving in a spot.
Cow.

Quote from: zippeurfou on March 04, 2013, 06:12 PM
How 0.24 or 0.26 really matters ? Are you guys willing to invent a new way to notch so it sit exactly 0.24 ?

You are a little bit of paranoid, aren't ya?

Quote
It is pretty clear that the way MI wrote the rule was to explain roughly that a sitter is a nade that does not move for a small amount of time which could be avoided.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but 1/4 second is a very exact period of time AFAIK.

Quote
Yes, if you take the rules by the words it is exactly 0.25 but isn't this league supposed to be for mature people that can sort things by themself and figure out that 0.24, 0.25 in this specific case shows it was a sitter ?

Sure. And who are those mature people? How would those mature people decide consequently, without a clear and precise consensus?

Every single "sitting amount" can happen from 0.02 to 5.00. If you want to keep that rule, you have to draw a line that doesn't depend on someone's subjective opinion.
Aren't we wanna get more people into playing W:A and TUS? The more they are, the greater the diversity grows, the more precise rules you'll need.

Twyrfher has a point, btw.

We dont need more rules, we need less of them. It was already brought up somewhere that sitter (or a special nade motion if it was up to me, just before it sits) should just dissapear causing no damage. But that has to wait obviously xd

Quote from: Twyrfher on March 04, 2013, 07:06 PM

QuoteSitters are grenades that sit for...

Don't confuse "to sit" with "to move". Tha nade was moving sitted on a spot. A dog can be sitted in a place, and of course he can be moving his eyes, tail, head, but he's sitted. That nades was sitted, rolling/moving in a spot.
Cow.

Yes, you're right imo .

@Prank: You seems to like to quote sentence by sentence posts so I'm going to do the same

Quote from: Prankster on March 04, 2013, 11:05 PM

Quote from: zippeurfou on March 04, 2013, 06:12 PM
How 0.24 or 0.26 really matters ? Are you guys willing to invent a new way to notch so it sit exactly 0.24 ?

You are a little bit of paranoid, aren't ya?

Don't get me wrong, I thought it was quite obvious I was ironic about it to prove the fact it doesn't matter 0.24 0.26 or 0.2456778889994334456778

Quote from: Prankster on March 04, 2013, 11:05 PM

Quote
It is pretty clear that the way MI wrote the rule was to explain roughly that a sitter is a nade that does not move for a small amount of time which could be avoided.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but 1/4 second is a very exact period of time AFAIK.

Thanks for the math doc.

Quote from: Prankster on March 04, 2013, 11:05 PM

Quote
Yes, if you take the rules by the words it is exactly 0.25 but isn't this league supposed to be for mature people that can sort things by themself and figure out that 0.24, 0.25 in this specific case shows it was a sitter ?

Sure. And who are those mature people? How would those mature people decide consequently, without a clear and precise consensus?

How were you playing bng before there was tus ? How were you playing bng in fb/xtc/wl... ?
Was there much more complaint ? not really. Was people crying because of 0.01 sec ?
Who are those mature people you ask me ? Well, everyone that does not need a rule to tell them how to walk in life. How to decide with a precise consensus ? Use your brain. Analyse the situation, ask yourself the good question. Could he have hit with a nade with less second ? Would this shoot be lamer than the one he attempted? What were the chance with the shoot he attempted to commit a sitter ? Would I have done the same ? Does it really affect the game ?
You know that's not so hard to try to be fair and not only rely on rules.

Quote from: Prankster on March 04, 2013, 11:05 PM
Every single "sitting amount" can happen from 0.02 to 5.00. If you want to keep that rule, you have to draw a line that doesn't depend on someone's subjective opinion.

I also disagree on this one. The idea of these rules is to be able to play this game in a fair and competitive way because some people would be very cheap if there weren't these rules. If you can manage to play fair and competitive but your not following by the letter these rules (ex: someone did a sitter of 0.26 but you allow him to go on because you know there was no other way of attacking and that was the best he could have done and hell it was a ns !). Does it really matter ? It reminds me a perfect example of how rules can be good but also bad against some "cheap" players. I played a bng long time ago after a very long break. I think it was a clanner with peja. The game was very very tight and we were both on each side of the map and my opponent had a very good hide. The only way I could hit him was to launch a 5 sec grenade (min bounce) which had to bounce on a very specific (small) part of the map to allow a bounce and explode without touching the floor. Well it was a very hard and skilled shoot to do. I did it and since both worms was at 20 it ended up the game. The funny part is that I asked peja if it was allowed and by a misunderstanding he said yes. Anyways, I couldn't have hit otherwise and it was just a matter of waiting him to kill me. Guess what happened, even if my shot was very nice they didn't even argue and said ok cow we report. I didn't complaint because I was the one breaking the rule but let me ask you, as a b2b player that enjoy nice and skilled shot do  you think it is normal ? Isn't bng about skills with bazooka and grenade and wasn't it a damn nice shot ? That's all the paradox about having too much, too strick rules. If you ask me, people should more think about the meaning of the rule than the rule itself.

Quote from: Prankster on March 04, 2013, 11:05 PM

Aren't we wanna get more people into playing W:A and TUS? The more they are, the greater the diversity grows, the more precise rules you'll need.

More rule=more complicated for a new comer.
Don't you think that the actual amount of rules already scare new comers ?
It is a game, if the game rules are too complex I'll just play another game.

edit: take that in your face komo ! xD

Quote from: Twyrfher on March 04, 2013, 07:06 PM

QuoteSitters are grenades that sit for...

Don't confuse "to sit" with "to move". Tha nade was moving sitted on a spot. A dog can be sitted in a place, and of course he can be moving his eyes, tail, head, but he's sitted. That nades was sitted, rolling/moving in a spot.
Cow.

I already said the grenade was not sitting, people don't sit upside down, grenades don't either. And it wasn't resting because it was still moving.

I copied and pasted exact dictionary definitions of the word "sit" and if anything, using the dictionary terms it proves it actually was not a sitter.


Edit: Lol zipp, nice post

Quote from: Prankster on March 04, 2013, 05:39 PM

Quote from: Husk on March 04, 2013, 08:02 AM

Quote from: Free on March 02, 2013, 06:27 PM
"Host cups less talk", what has hosting cups changed in Classic really other than amount of girder in T17, and there was no need for cup for that change, as far as I rememeber.

how else r u going to get people to try ur new scheme then?

u host a cup with ur new scheme idea, ppl like it. maybe 1 season in trl, ppl like it some more. maybe enough players like it enough for it to make changes for bng in classic

You replace it just like that. Sometimes there are logical arguments/changes, while asking the people just end up in pointless, biased flamewars.
And actually, you should host a cup with the current official scheme too, at the same time to be fair. I just doubt 1.: there are enough people who give enough shit to play all of these cups; 2.: it's the best solution. Democracy isn't always the answer. *
If you want to change something like this, just change it, wait for a few months and check how people's attitude develop.


*I mean this is democracy as well, the point is the form. A longitudinal study gives much better image in this case, than a sectional.

good luck with that =) when can we expect this change?

Quote from: zippeurfou on March 05, 2013, 03:25 AM

Quote from: Prankster on March 04, 2013, 11:05 PM

Quote
Yes, if you take the rules by the words it is exactly 0.25 but isn't this league supposed to be for mature people that can sort things by themself and figure out that 0.24, 0.25 in this specific case shows it was a sitter ?

Sure. And who are those mature people? How would those mature people decide consequently, without a clear and precise consensus?

How were you playing bng before there was tus ? How were you playing bng in fb/xtc/wl... ?
Was there much more complaint ? not really. Was people crying because of 0.01 sec ?

I don't know anything about previous leagues, but one thing I doubt is that there were more people than now.
More people have more different points of view, more opinions on the same matter, ergo if you have a rule, it should be precise in case to avoid flamewars.
If there were more people, you can forget about what I said.
Oh, and no, I didn't know this league was for only mature people.

Quote from: zippeurfou on March 05, 2013, 03:25 AM

Quote from: Prankster on March 04, 2013, 11:05 PM
Every single "sitting amount" can happen from 0.02 to 5.00. If you want to keep that rule, you have to draw a line that doesn't depend on someone's subjective opinion.

I didn't complaint because I was the one breaking the rule but let me ask you, as a b2b player that enjoy nice and skilled shot do  you think it is normal ? Isn't bng about skills with bazooka and grenade and wasn't it a damn nice shot ? That's all the paradox about having too much, too strick rules. If you ask me, people should more think about the meaning of the rule than the rule itself.

I said several times that BnG should have less rules, even in this topic.
But if you want to keep a rule, it should be precise.
Btw, in your story, taking the current rules, your opponents were darksiding.

Quote from: zippeurfou on March 05, 2013, 03:25 AM

Quote from: Prankster on March 04, 2013, 11:05 PM
Aren't we wanna get more people into playing W:A and TUS? The more they are, the greater the diversity grows, the more precise rules you'll need.

More rule=more complicated for a new comer.
Don't you think that the actual amount of rules already scare new comers ?

I said several times that BnG should have less rules, even in this topic.
The expression "more precise rules" means "preciser" rules, not more and precise rules, FYI.

I'll have this with bold here, just in case:
I am against this amount of rules. I'm against loose rules too (in an official league).

@Husk: probably never, you know MI.