This discussion has happened before, but I'm not sure why there's still no rule about it. We should add a rule allowing teams to judge times in RR by fractions of a second whenever they wish. It's not a huge problem when you tie by the whole second in 1v1 RRs, since whoever really won is just going to get a tie instead.
But in 2v2 rrs, the team that really won has a chance of turning into the losing team. If one side got times of 31.1 and 30.1 and the other side got times of 30.9 and 30.9, the times would look like 61 versus 60, when it was really 61.2 versus 61.8.
"Times are measured by the whole second you finish on. However, if one team requests it (within 5 minutes of the game being finished), times must be judged exactly, by checking the replay."
Does anybody have any problem with just adding this in?
If we go this route, I would just prefer every game be judged exactly, 2v2 and 1v1, but yea I do notice and have noticed this distinction about 2v2 being slightly more complex due to the team nature of rr clanner. A team score that seemingly wins can actually lose when including fractions.
I don't see the need.
You should see the need, in the clanner we played today, it seemed like some people didn't even realize that the losers might in fact be the winners.
And yeah I want the same rule to apply to 1v1 and 2v2 for consistency. I fully support getting rid of judging by the whole second, I mean most of the time you still won't have to check the replay, only if it's a tie in 1v1 or there's a 1 second difference in 2v2. I just phrased the rule like this because I know everyone in TUS is probably too lazy to consider more of a change than that.
Well its nice when u draw on last worm tho in 1v1.
I like the actual system for 1v1, but in 2v2 i think we could watch replays yes.
it's a racing game, the faster team should never lose, and that can happen with the current rules. opposing this change would be absolutely absurd
I don't like this idea. With this rule draws will become almost impossible. But draws bring fun and tension :)
I oppose this rule. Sure, if we measure by the 100th of a second the faster team wins, but draws are half the fun of ttrr. Like Statik said they add excitement and tension to the scheme, definitely opposed with all my heart, as "draws" are fun.
Draws can be fun, but they just don't work for 2v2, not unless you also consider it a tie when the times are 1 second off from each other. The way I phrased the rule lets people judge by whole seconds if they want to, if that's what we have to do.
I would really be in support of just having an objective measure of who won and lost though. This way, there's no possibility of people reporting a clanner where the 'winners' were in fact the losers just because both sides went by whole seconds. And by actually enforcing checking replays, more people will be made aware of this situation where clans have a 1 second difference in times.
Quote from: Dub-c on June 26, 2012, 01:09 AM
I don't see the need.
You're dumb
Quote from: MagiC on June 26, 2012, 01:10 AM
Quote from: Dub-c on June 26, 2012, 01:09 AM
I don't see the need.
+1
And you're dumb
And this is why you are both dumb:
Quote from: ShyGuy on June 26, 2012, 03:26 AM
it's a racing game, the faster team should never lose, and that can happen with the current rules. opposing this change would be absolutely absurd
Lol Komo bad reply, let them have their opinion. ;)
hmm after re-reading the OP properly I agree times should be checked in that scenario, damn! Im still for counting times by the second in 1v1 though.
draws belong to rr
On one hand, the chance of having a draw would drop to it's 1/50 times of what it is now, but the possibility of a draw would be still there.
On the other hand, it's a different kind of excitement to try and estimate what your opponent's time exactly was and what do you need and more excitement to see what the replay says.
So even though it takes something away, it adds something new, and it is more punctual of course. I always liked this idea by the way. :)
whether draws belong in ttrr or if draws are fun or not isn't the issue. the only objective in ttrr is being faster than the opponent, and currently by strictly looking at whole numbers, it is possible for the faster team to lose. The only way to win ttrr is to be faster than the opponent, yet you can be faster than your opponent and still lose. does not make any sense for a competitive, luckless scheme
It would be little stupid to add the special rule for 2vs2 and 3vs3, but keep 1vs1 as is... Also I don't want to watch replays and sum times and then realize our team lost lol. In football referees are not allowed to watch replays and it also adds excitement. We can make a poll though.
I disagree to change 1v1 rules. About 2v2, I think we could check replay on a case like Mab said, and then make it a draw in this case (61.2 vs 61.8 = both 61).
I think it would rly suck to lose a clanner by checking replay, thinking you have won.
Imagine your mate did 30, opponents did 31 and 30. It's last turn, last worm. You know u have to make 30 to win, u do it, and finally u lost. It kind of sux.. You didn't know u had to get a short 30 or a 29..
Really i wont do calculs in game and think : Ok we got a bad 30 so its probably 30.8.. opponents got good 30 and 31... so I need to get less than 30.5 at least.. Its too complicated guys rr is simple. Dont delete our draws. It's so enojyinh when u draw the game when opponents got good scores.
So i think if this case appears we could make the game a draw :)
Because WE LOVE DRAWS in RR ! This is the most exciting thing about the schemes!
If people are sick of having a draw when they do 30 and opponent do 30.98, then we can also add a rule like : If both times are close from 0.50 or less, its a draw, otherwise there is a winner. So 30 vs 30.98 isnt a draw but 30.98 vs 31.00 is.
So draws are the most exciting? I thought it was the racing, really...
Well when your opponent get a v good time and u draw him, its a very good feeling. So yes exciting
Quote from: Flori on June 26, 2012, 07:30 AM
Well when your opponent get a v good time and u draw him, its a very good feeling. So yes exciting
I really don't mean to offend, but I think that's really stupid mate...
If you think he got a very good time, say, 45.78 on a map that averages at 47s from the top players, and then you got 45.77, it doesn't matter what you agree to do, or if the TuS rules say so, the laws of the f@#!ing universe state, YOU won because YOU were faster, if the ultimate goal was the loser died instantly, guess what, your opponent would be dead and you would be alive, would it feel good then?
I know this sounds a bit harsh, but I really believe in being exact with things, I don't like people who sugar-coat things, or pretend something that really isn't what they act or think it is, or agree to rules that are by the laws of physics, just f@#!ing wrong... This leads to people getting hurt or people unfair losing what is rightfully theres, or accidents in real life etc...
Obviously TTRR ain't gonna kill anyone, but the logic applies in real life, too many people thinking this way is just wrong imo...
And like Ray said, having to check replays to check the time is a great feeling, for me it's better than a draw then a possible loss, when you actually won the 1st damn time... That's just stupid lol.
In the words of South Park, "dumb, dumb dumb dumb dumb".
Anyone who wants to think otherwise, be my guest, I won't argue with you, I won't even reply, I will just quietly feel a bit of pity for you.
I think the rule as I stated it is satisfactory. In both 1v1 and 2v2, people should have the option to go by non-whole seconds whenever they wish. Whole number enthusiasts can stick to that if neither side wants to bother checking the exact time, but they shouldn't be allowed to enforce that method if the other side wants more accuracy.
Hey Komo, remember this game? https://www.tus-wa.com/leagues/game-105538/ (1st replay)
Times were 51.30 + 56.24 vs 50.80 + 57.54 = 107.54 vs 108.34. You lost! But you was happy as **** And you wanna deprive other people of this feeling? You are really dumb :P
Quote from: Statik on June 26, 2012, 08:12 AM
Hey Komo, remember this game? https://www.tus-wa.com/leagues/game-105538/ (1st replay)
Times were 51.30 + 56.24 vs 50.80 + 57.54 = 107.54 vs 108.34. You lost! But you was happy as **** And you wanna deprive other people of this feeling? You are really dumb :P
Yah I was happy, cuz I suck at TTRR and it was another chance to win lol, who wouldn't be? I still think it's completely lame deep down, you are dumb for being too close-minded on this subject.
No, you are dumb. What is the point of calling another people dumb? I just tried and don't get it, maybe because I'm dumb? Or you? Or every1? Dumb people flood in such topics for 50 pages and then forget. Smart people make polls and decisions :)
Quote from: Statik on June 26, 2012, 08:23 AMSmart people make polls and decisions :)
Stupid people also make polls and decisions ;)
Anyway, why you arguing with me just for the sake of it? I like you lol, got a problem? PM me then.
Quote
And like Ray said, having to check replays to check the time is a great feeling, for me it's better than a draw then a possible loss, when you actually won the 1st damn time... That's just stupid lol.
QuoteYah I was happy, cuz I suck at TTRR and it was another chance to win lol, who wouldn't be?
And !
QuoteI know this sounds a bit harsh, but I really believe in being exact with things,
Good job here Komo
The only thing that comes to mind reading this thread is the Benny Hill tune.
But then, my counting in RR goes by the ten seconds and not the tenth of a second.
Making draw for a newbie like me is awesome. It was a very good feeling when me and Csongi played a clanner vs TdC.. I was totally cold (yea for newbies it also counts!), Csongi made a very nice time and with my LAST worm I did a tie (or maybe we won if there were this new rule then?!).. but it was a good feeling and I got warmed, so on the 2nd map we won the game unambiguously (I hope I've found the good word in dictionary hehe). So my opinion is: an unambiguous winning is better than checking the replays. Or at least divide the second in 2 or 4 part, not 50.. draws are cool, don't make draws die pls! ;D
Quote from: Tomi on June 26, 2012, 08:46 AM
Making draw for a newbie like me is awesome.
I read this and didn't want to read the rest lol...(But I did)
This isn't the salvation army, TUS isn't a charity, making a draw for a noob is just giving false hope, and like I have already said, it goes against the laws of physics...
Quote from: Komito on June 26, 2012, 08:49 AM
Quote from: Tomi on June 26, 2012, 08:46 AM
Making draw for a newbie like me is awesome.
I read this and didn't want to read the rest lol...(But I did)
This isn't the salvation army, TUS isn't a charity, making a draw for a noob is just giving false hope, and like I have already said, it goes against the laws of physics...
Why you don't lame shot in bng if Tus isn't a charity ?
it seems like every time a scheme change thread is made, an argument is made that basically says keep the scheme the same to help newer players, to give them so luck/hope, etc... maybe it is time to start making changes that favor the more skilled player instead of the worse player - LIKE ANY COMPETITIVE GAMING LEAGUE WOULD DO. other games don't need to cradle the new players by molding the game to fit them. like any game, new and bad players will get better with playing a lot. winning a game by a fluke does not make a player better
Yea komo unfortunately I can see this every day here... seriously.. a lot of guys are more serious here than in real life.. I go here to have fun with this game, not to be a f@#!ing politician hehe.. But as I can see in every day, you guys try to kill the "fun" from all the schemes :/
I agree that this would be good for pro players, but I don't like the idea. It is just my opinion, you don't have to read it :D And I won't be angry with anyone if this rule will be applied ofc ;)
Quote from: Tomi on June 26, 2012, 08:55 AM
Yea komo unfortunately I can see this every day here... seriously.. a lot of guys are more serious here than in real life.. I go here to have fun with this game, not to be a f@#!ing politician hehe.. But as I can see in every day, you guys try to kill the "fun" from all the schemes :/
I agree that this would be good for pro players, but I don't like the idea. It is just my opinion, you don't have to read it :D
There is a free league for more luck based, fun schemes. Also, anyone can host a game for fun on wormnet. The play-for-fun players already have all those options, I don't see why they aren't happy with those and feel the need to constantly prevent change to the competitive league
No, you misunderstand me.. I like playing competitive, but I like if I have fun while playing competitive ;) (Maybe that's why I'll never be a good player, but who cares ;D) It's so simple.
But this thread is not about me.. I just wrote my opinion, let's stop this ;) I'm looking for what the end of this thread will be :D
Hmm.. there's only 10 to 20 players who play as seriously as Mablak & Random & co do. I don't care much for their penis contest, and neither do a lot of other players. If they want to have their own league where they can notch nades, calculate trajectories and measure times by the second, fine, np with that. But why does it have to be the league with all the popular schemes in it? At least give the lighter players a better alternative then than a league with schemes only a handful of people like to play :-X
I seriously doubt the amount of fun people have now will sharply decline with minor scheme changes like this. besides, what constitutes as "fun"? it's a subjective term. rather than base schemes on something subjective, we should base them off of objective things that make sense
Quote from: HHC on June 26, 2012, 09:07 AM
Hmm.. there's only 10 to 20 players who play as seriously as Mablak & Random & co do. I don't care much for their penis contest, and neither do a lot of other players. If they want to have their own league where they can notch nades, calculate trajectories and measure times by the second, fine, np with that. But why does it have to be the league with all the popular schemes in it? At least give the lighter players a better alternative then than a league with schemes only a handful of people like to play :-X
If you can use notching as an example of an extreme end (the very skilled end), then so can I with the current rules of ttrr. You guys want to potentially make the winner of a ttrr the loser to preserve draws because you think they are fun. That's a pretty extreme "fun" based policy.
If people could program their own program to play a ttrr (this is hypothetical, of course), I would even favor that over keeping a rule that makes the winner the loser.
There is a rule that can make the winner the loser. In a competitive league. just think about that. No matter how much you love draws, fun, happy times, NOTHING justifies that logic.
EDIT: statik, i'm sorry, but your analogy with football referees is completely invalid. football is not about racing. If you were to compare real life racing games to ttrr, the methods would favor the change Mablak proposed. Olympic racing events, nascar, horse racing, they all use precise cameras to see who won. A great example of this can be found in the last summer olympics with Michael Phelps and with old fashion photo-finishes.
Well, personally I can't be arsed to check replays to see which team was 0.1 of a second faster. It's just too much 'paperwork'. I don't have a problem though if my opponent wants to check it.
It's just the whole mentality that bugs me. It's a game for crying out loud, if you want to be a professional gamer go play starcraft or warcraft or other shit people play for money in Korea. Nobody gives a shit if you are number one in a 15-year old game that only a few thousand people play and most of whom live in Siberia.
The vast majority here plays it as a hobby in the evening and they just want to have a good time.
It is sad for people like me that both the competition ánd the schemes themselves have been ruined by people who only care about winning and being the best and who go to ANY length to achieve that goal.
It all started with 'minor scheme changes', it ended with BnG developing from a challenging and fun unanchored game to a dumb, boring shitescheme where people lame and cheat like there's no tomorrow.
Can you blame me for saying 'no ty' to yet another scheme change that the 'pro's' want to ban out any little piece of luck or randomness that might jinx their perfect recs, but a change that nobody else really wants?
Mablak can go f@#! himself. There I said it.
Quote from: Tomi on June 26, 2012, 08:55 AM
Yea komo unfortunately I can see this every day here... seriously.. a lot of guys are more serious here than in real life.. I go here to have fun with this game, not to be a f@#!ing politician hehe.. But as I can see in every day, you guys try to kill the "fun" from all the schemes :/
Straight away you are completely wrong, we ALL understand EVERYONE is entitled to play for fun in a competitive League.
But when the dust settles and life continues... It's a League, the aim is to win, the rules should be justified and as fair/real as possible.
At the end of the day, no matter the rules, you would all still play for fun if you play for fun, or serious if you play serious.
Oh flori, I wrote a MASSIVE post but thought it'd be better to PM you cuz I know right away people gonna moan like shit, got carried away and totally off subject lol.
Quote from: HHC on June 26, 2012, 09:24 AM
Well, personally I can't be arsed to check replays to see which team was 0.1 of a second faster. It's just too much 'paperwork'. I don't have a problem though if my opponent wants to check it.
It's just the whole mentality that bugs me. It's a game for crying out loud, if you want to be a professional gamer go play starcraft or warcraft or other shit people play for money in Korea. Nobody gives a shit if you are number one in a 15-year old game that only a few thousand people play and most of whom live in Siberia.
The vast majority here plays it as a hobby in the evening and they just want to have a good time.
It is sad for people like me that both the competition ánd the schemes themselves have been ruined by people who only care about winning and being the best and who go to ANY length to achieve that goal.
It all started with 'minor scheme changes', it ended with BnG developing from a challenging and fun unanchored game to a dumb, boring shitescheme where people lame and cheat like there's no tomorrow.
Can you blame me for saying 'no ty' to yet another scheme change that the 'pro's' want to ban out any little piece of luck or randomness that might jinx their perfect recs, but a change that nobody else really wants?
Mablak can go f@#! himself. There I said it.
+1000 Thats exactly what i think.
bng notch, repeat hits, ropers top hide.. i hate all of this
I don't mean any offence but it just seems to me like you are the type of people who generally prefer an easy life then.
hhc, despite your complaints about other schemes, there is not another scheme out there where a player can lose the game even if he was empirically more successful at achieving the main goal of the game than his opponent. I'm not even talking about a case where someone could play better than someone and then lose by accident (like a self hit). I'm talking about 1) here is the main objective of the game, 2) both teams used all their runs, the game is over, let's see who is faster, 3) the team that was physically faster loses the game because of a rule. There is no other game like that.
it's also strange that you complain about schemes turning into boring lamefests (and tbh, this only really applies to bng, which is STILL SUBJECTIVE ANYWAY), yet you won't even allow the people the option, the chance, the opportunity to look at times precisely, which is shocking because if someone wins the game according to the scheme description, they should win the game.
I just don't understand it when people say this change is congruent with the "must win at all costs" attitude... if a team is cumulatively faster, they should win, isn't that the rule of the damn scheme? Asking for a change that will honor the real winner isn't "going ANY lengths to achieve a goal". If a team is cumulatively slower than another team, it should never win, that is just f@#!ed up. it's a god damn racing game.
and come on HHC, you can't be arsed to check a replay? it's not like this situation will happen every single ttrr game. Also, ttrr is the quickest league scheme, there is plenty of time to play a ttrr and check a replay if need be
Quote from: HHC on June 26, 2012, 09:07 AM
Hmm.. there's only 10 to 20 players who play as seriously as Mablak & Random & co do.
Plenty more however that are playing with the goal in mind of reaching that level.
Quote from: HHCIf they want to have their own league where they can notch nades, calculate trajectories and measure times by the second, fine, np with that.
I think a healthier alternative for the league, rather than all the good players leaving (how can you think this is a good idea?) is that the people that so much despise competition started playing funners instead of league games.
Shy, I don't compare ttrr and football. I'm just saying, there are types of games where replays are not needed and they can even ruin "fun". We have "photo-finish" in ttrr challenges, but online games are different, at least for me.
I would support Mablak, if there was a built-in photo-finish in WA, like in Worms Reloaded. But checking replays is just boring. It's faster and easier to start another game, I don't remember people had any troubles with it before.
Quote from: Statik on June 26, 2012, 09:50 AM
But checking replays is just boring. It's faster and easier to start another game, I don't remember people had any troubles with it before.
it's not faster to play another ttrr than to check a replay. Also, i think you are thinking about this too much from the 100 vs 100 time perspective. Think of it as the 100 vs 101 time perspective, where the 101 team was actually faster in milliseconds. with the current rule, not only do they not get the win, but there is not even a draw/replay... they flat out lose even though they were faster! this is the only scheme with such a negative anomaly and it is such a simple fix
Quote from: ShyGuy on June 26, 2012, 09:48 AM
hhc, despite your complaints about other schemes, there is not another scheme out there where a player can lose the game even if he was empirically more successful at achieving the main goal of the game than his opponent. I'm not even talking about a case where someone could play better than someone and then lose by accident (like a self hit). I'm talking about 1) here is the main objective of the game, 2) both teams used all their runs, the game is over, let's see who is faster, 3) the team that was physically faster loses the game because of a rule. There is no other game like that.
it's also strange that you complain about schemes turning into boring lamefests (and tbh, this only really applies to bng, which is STILL SUBJECTIVE ANYWAY), yet you won't even allow the people the option, the chance, the opportunity to look at times precisely, which is shocking because if someone wins the game according to the scheme description, they should win the game.
I just don't understand it when people say this change is congruent with the "must win at all costs" attitude... if a team is cumulatively faster, they should win, isn't that the rule of the damn scheme? Asking for a change that will honor the real winner isn't "going ANY lengths to achieve a goal". If a team is cumulatively slower than another team, it should never win, that is just f@#!ed up. it's a god damn racing game.
and come on HHC, you can't be arsed to check a replay? it's not like this situation will happen every single ttrr game. Also, ttrr is the quickest league scheme, there is plenty of time to play a ttrr and check a replay if need be
We dont want to put this rr rules coz its funnier with the old one. Little by little we change the rules or every schemes to get less fun and so the "noobs" got less chance to wins the "pros". This is f@#!ing worms damn it. Let us have fun.
I don't know what else to say other than the fun-purists have so many more options to tickle their fancy than the people who want to play competitively with a lot of skill. You guys essentially want a fun based monopoly on all things worm related. it's not very fair, you're not giving the other side a chance to have fun in their way. and i'll say it again, fun is subjective. This is not even an issue about fun, it is an issue of correcting a scheme that doesnt properly honor the correct winner. it's a bug
it's not a bug, it's a feature
Quote from: Statik on June 26, 2012, 10:27 AM
it's not a bug, it's a feature
It's neither, it's a stupid rule that defies the laws of the universe and gives less skilled players a better chance of winning.
Y'all born with a silver spoon in your mouth or summin?
If the RR scheme came in with a built in decimal chronometer that stopped the moment a worm touched the end would the guys that prefer funners shut up?
Because we're only trying to achieve that with the means we have in order to make the league more fair. You really think this is a negative thing to want to do? How could you possibly...
Do you guys realize you could possibly go a whole season without having to check a replay once?
I dont know what to answer. We just see worms league too differently.
You guys are too serious, like really too serious, when it's WORMS.. Small community, no money at the end.
We are just playing for fun and yes, its a league, yes its competition, but u won't win anything at the end, so everyone playing clanners and singles do it because they like it, and because its fun.
I want to give a lesso about bng notches, repeat shots, roper top hides and so many thing but i won't.
I just dont get how you can all be so hella serious on worms...
I wouldnt mind that at all. I just can't be arsed to check replays cause some guys can't accept draws. If the timer in game says 50 and for the other player 50 as well, it's a draw in my book and we can just replay it. I'd be pretty annoyed when my opponent then leaves the game to check on the replay and claim the win if he's 0.2 sec faster.
Just like eS piss me off when they debate which scheme to pick like it's some f'cking presidential election.. and then in game want to know which scheme we pick cause then they can then go on msn and message all their peeps as to get the best possible line-up.
It's a damn game, play the game with whoever is there and stfu already.
Quote from: ShyGuy on June 26, 2012, 09:56 AM
Also, i think you are thinking about this too much from the 100 vs 100 time perspective. Think of it as the 100 vs 101 time perspective, where the 101 team was actually faster in milliseconds. with the current rule, not only do they not get the win, but there is not even a draw/replay... they flat out lose even though they were faster! this is the only scheme with such a negative anomaly and it is such a simple fix
I will respond with this once more. It's completely unfair
Quote from: HHC on June 26, 2012, 10:40 AM
I wouldnt mind that at all. I just can't be arsed to check replays cause some guys can't accept draws.
Woah woah wait a minute, where to you get off on making it their fault? They shouldn't have to accept a draw when in reality, they won...
That's actually pretty evil if you ask me...
Just act like we are in wwp and we have no problems.
Quote from: Flori on June 26, 2012, 10:54 AM
Just act like we are in wwp and we have no problems.
f@#! that, I can't live if I can't minimise...
Quote from: Flori on June 26, 2012, 10:39 AM
You guys are too serious, like really too serious, when it's WORMS.. Small community, no money at the end.
We are just playing for fun and yes, its a league, yes its competition, but u won't win anything at the end
So.. if you don't get anything materialistic from winning a competition, the competition is pointless?
I guess this is what our spending culture has driven us. I'm fairly sure most of us "serious" players just play for the sake of the competition and excecuting something we are good at. It's more of a mental attitude.
Anyways..
I agree it's f@#!ed up if you win when you actually had the worse time.. especially in clanners. Something should be done with this, imo.
Have you thought about summing up times of 2vs2, then act like 1vs1 on the result?
Team A: 50.02 and 50.02
Team B: 50.98 and 49.98
By current RR rules:
Team A: 50 + 50 = 100
Team B: 50 + 49 = 99
Winner: Team B.
The hardcore photo-finish:
Team A: 50.02 + 50.02 = 100.04
Team B: 50.98 + 49.98 = 100.96
Winner: Team A.
Something in between (first count, then act like 1vs1 rule)
Team A: 50.02 + 50.02 = 100.04 ~ 100
Team B: 50.98 + 49.98 = 100.96 ~ 100
Draw.
Komo, you're warned. If you can't not pounce on people, please don't get involved in the thread. (referring to dumb and stupid)
HHC, it was your very first time in TUS. I know you weren't really attacking Mablak but a certain thought. But you're also warned. :(
I'll say something in defense of not changing the rules. WA's engine rounds numbers but also damage:
Imagine a 99 life worm. Imagine you hit him with an axe 7 times.
The result in the game is a dead worm.
However, the worm should have 0'77 life.
I don't think anyone here would be in favor of making a rule that accounts for that, right?
Ok fair enough, i'll keep it in my thoughts in future, or try.
Yeah sorry Mab, was more a figure of speech.
So should we make a poll about this?
Yeah MI that's what i tried to say somewhere but you explained it better.
Thats more draws. I like this count.
I think ties would have to be really, really fun to ever justify giving a win to a losing team. And MonkeyIsland, the main issue is that people don't want to check replays, so your solution is probably not going to work.
But seriously guys, people aren't going to be checking replays every match. It's something that will detract like 1 minute of time once every 20 games, and it's already an extremely quick scheme. It's not that much of an inconvenience.
I think whatever rule is made should apply to 1v1s and 2v2s equally for simplicity. This is something that obviously needs fixing, and it's an incredibly easy fix.
Easy to change, but not everyone agrees to change.
Quote from: Flori on June 26, 2012, 11:35 AM
Easy to change, but not everyone agrees to change.
Yeah but when the argument against change is "draws are fun" one has to at least question the reasons. Specially considering that technically speaking, they're not draws, at all.
Why are draws fun? Is it equally fun to draw against a worse player than to draw against a better player?
Why you wanna make the fastest scheme even more fast :( When I played rr tournaments with barman, we constantly had 2-3 draws and we both liked it.
Also I can imagine a game on a map where 39s is really hard to get and both teams did 40s. Then mablak does an incredible turn and gets 39. But his team loses, because 39.98+40.xx is worse than 40.yy+40.zz. Bl.
Quote from: Statik on June 26, 2012, 12:00 PM
Also I can imagine a game on a map where 39s is really hard to get and both teams did 40s. Then mablak does an incredible turn and gets 39. But his team loses, because 39.98+40.xx is worse than 40.yy+40.zz. Bl.
I had just imagined this same thing and I don't grasp how anyone would be upset that in said scenario the fastest team won. Unless you're implying clanners should stop being a team game and that Mablak's score should for some reason be more important than the other three.
I like draws.... its fun
I have no problem with current system, it's clear and nobody complain about it, so why should we look for problems?
Quote from: Maciej on June 26, 2012, 03:58 PM
I have no problem with current system, it's clear and nobody complain about it, so why should we look for problems?
dude, didn't you hear the news?
Mablak lost a game
(http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20101205035660/spore/images/f/f7/OMG_Face_Dude.PNG)
hmmm, it seems as though there is a lot of... confusion, in this thread.
Shy, you are right. Its a racing scheme, the top cumulative time should win. If the "faster" team loses because of an error in calculation then this is wrong and shouldn't happen, nobody can argue otherwise.
As for 1v1, its been measured by the second for as long as Ive been playing anyway, its what people are used to. Nobody is "moulding" the game to conform to the needs of "noobs", if anything, this proposition is breaking the mould from how it has always been.
End of the day Mab is right, people should be able to choose to measure by the 100th of a second if they like, ESPECIALLY in rare situations where the faster team end up losing if we only go by the second. Fortunately situations like these are rare, so to those of you saying "gtfo I cba to check replays every game", please don't say that because you won't have to in 95% of games.
HHC I am shocked by your posts. There is nothing wrong with wanting a more accurate measure of time in ttrr, ESPECIALLY when it could mean that you were actually cumulatively faster than the other team. There is nothing "lame" about this WHATSOEVER, it is NONSENSICAL to award the win to a team that were cumulatively slower than the "losing" team. This is the main point Mablack and Shy are making, and I dont see how this point can be disputed. To HHC and others calling this rule change "lame", please stfu. We all play this game for fun, changing the rules to make sure the REAL winning team is awarded the win MAKES PERFECT SENSE. It is not at all lame, and in no way whatsoever does it detract from the "fun" of the scheme.
It really irritates me when people say things like "you take this game too seriously". Hello? You play this game everyday, we all take this game seriously. You also made it seem like its a bad thing for wanting to be the best you can at the game and take competition seriously. Competition is fun, its great that people take the game seriously. Don't attribute "taking the game seriously" with an inability to enjoy the game. I take the game seriously... If I play a league game I take it seriously, I do everything within my power to win because ITS A COMPETITIVE GAME! If I lose... COOL! I still had a great time trying to win. Again, do NOT try and say that people who want to win are taking the game too seriously, this really bugs me and makes me facepalm myself and shake my head.
As for 1v1, we can see many people in this thread (including exceptional RR'ers) say that they enjoy draws, and there is nothing wrong with that. Its great when you have to play a game 2 or 3 times because you've both finished within the same second, its very exciting. Im sure most RRers (including Mablack) are still more than happy to measure by the second in 1v1, because having to win by at least 1 whole second adds a ton of fun and tension to the scheme. However if people wish to measure by the 100th, then they should state it in the lobby before the game starts, again, there is nothing wrong with this either. Im sure most RRers will still be happy to play by the second.
If you can't tell in game who won the game, without going to replays, then the scheme is retarded.
Quote from: Dub-c on June 26, 2012, 04:39 PM
If you can't tell in game who won the game, without going to replays, then the scheme is retarded.
This is the whole point. In RARE cases you do have to check the replay to see who won, and in instances where the faster team appears to lose when they have actually won, checking the replay is mandatory.
In 1v1 if it is required to check replays after for milliseconds its close enough to be considered a draw in my opinion.
Quote from: Dub-c on June 26, 2012, 04:39 PM
If you can't tell in game who won the game, without going to replays, then the scheme is retarded.
Really?..
Quote from: Dub-c on June 26, 2012, 05:00 PM
In 1v1 if it is required to check replays after for milliseconds its close enough to be considered a draw in my opinion.
yes, and many agree, I agree, like I said in my posts. The option to choose to measure with seconds or mili seconds is what has been proposed, there is no right or wrong decision.
Quote from: ShyGuy on June 26, 2012, 09:56 AM
it's not faster to play another ttrr than to check a replay.
Still a better way to spend your time imo :) I understand where you're going at though, but I also understand where other people are going at. I just hope people won't get too spastic about accuracy and such in a worms league (it's not like this is a professional league with sponsors and shit), would make the complaint forum a bit busier 8) And it would give us a whole lot more threads that reach 6 pages within a day :o I don't have time for that!
But if accuracy is what you want, then shouldn't we first also be able to report draws? I think it's safe to say that it would be quite an accomplishment for me to achieve a draw against Mablak in, well, any scheme except maybe bungeerace ;D Objectively, and accurately, such an achievement should earn me some points and should cost Mablak some points. It feels like this falls perfectly under the argument of accuracy, don't you agree? Personally, I think there should be draws and they should count. Besides, it's not as if we count the amount of wins to check who deserves to be in playoffs, we count points.
Personally, I wouldn't check replays (I'd rather just play a new round), but I wouldn't begrudge people the option to check. I think most people wouldn't bother checking anyway :)
Why trying to modify a scheme which never gave any trouble to anyone, instead of talking about Hysteria/BnG etc?
RR is just perfect like this, imo.
Quote from: DarkOne on June 26, 2012, 05:09 PM
bungeerace ;D
(http://i49.tinypic.com/15i0m1f.png)
Quote from: NAiL on June 26, 2012, 04:37 PM
It really irritates me when people say things like "you take this game too seriously". Hello? You play this game everyday, we all take this game seriously. You also made it seem like its a bad thing for wanting to be the best you can at the game and take competition seriously. Competition is fun, its great that people take the game seriously. Don't attribute "taking the game seriously" with an inability to enjoy the game. I take the game seriously... If I play a league game I take it seriously, I do everything within my power to win because ITS A COMPETITIVE GAME! If I lose... COOL! I still had a great time trying to win. Again, do NOT try and say that people who want to win are taking the game too seriously, this really bugs me and makes me facepalm myself and shake my head.
Dude im serious in every clan, i want to win every game, i take it really seriously but, i dont play lame and cheap to winand thats the good way to play. And i'm sure i'm right 100% in what im saying. And the thing that some guy play lame and cheap to win which is much less fun in the game, for me they take the game too serisously.
(bng notches and repeat shots, roper top hides etc..)
Quote from: Flori on June 26, 2012, 06:14 PM
Quote from: NAiL on June 26, 2012, 04:37 PM
It really irritates me when people say things like "you take this game too seriously". Hello? You play this game everyday, we all take this game seriously. You also made it seem like its a bad thing for wanting to be the best you can at the game and take competition seriously. Competition is fun, its great that people take the game seriously. Don't attribute "taking the game seriously" with an inability to enjoy the game. I take the game seriously... If I play a league game I take it seriously, I do everything within my power to win because ITS A COMPETITIVE GAME! If I lose... COOL! I still had a great time trying to win. Again, do NOT try and say that people who want to win are taking the game too seriously, this really bugs me and makes me facepalm myself and shake my head.
Dude im serious in every clan, i want to win every game, i take it really seriously but, i dont play lame and cheap to winand thats the good way to play. And i'm sure i'm right 100% in what im saying. And the thing that some guy play lame and cheap to win which is much less fun in the game, for me they take the game too serisously.
(bng notches and repeat shots, roper top hides etc..)
checking the replay to see who got the fastest time in ttrr is neither lame or cheap. I dont know why you would put it in the same context as hiding on the roof in roper... it has nothing to do with lameness, it is to see who got the best time...
Honestly if a guy leave to check replay on a draw and tells me he won i'll tell him he is a morron and dont play with him rr again.
you are missing the point flori... re-read mablacks first post. The main reason to check replays is when its 2v2 and the losing team actually has a faster time... f@#! this repeating myself my head hurts
He also added we should get the rule for 1v1 AND 2v2 after.
And I rly don't care if i lose a game in clanner by seconds and had a better time with millisecs... As we don't see millisecs IN the game.Its so wrong.. You are last turn, you know you have to get some time to win, you do it, you r so f@#!ing happy, and then you lost coz of replay ? Hella bad.
no, he said people should be able to CHOOSE if they want to go by seconds or milliseconds.
and like I said, most rrers are going to go by the second in 1v1... thats the way its been for years and most of us like it that way, so there is no harm here (and most probably in 2v2 too, unless RARE situations like the one described in the OP occur).
Quote from: Mablak on June 26, 2012, 12:24 AM
This discussion has happened before, but I'm not sure why there's still no rule about it. We should add a rule allowing teams to judge times in RR by fractions of a second whenever they wish.
Whenever they wish means you choose ?
I never understood why roof hiding in roper is lame :P
Quote from: madog on June 26, 2012, 07:23 PM
I never understood why roof hiding in roper is lame :P
Sore losers consider it lame, it actually isn't the least bit lame because playing in a league you're just securing your win. Blame the scheme or the maps if anything. :D
Seems pretty easy if on every roper game when u get an advantage thanks to a cr8, after this u hide only top so you are sure to attack every turn and win.
When you are 2v1 it's not same coz if you hide very well your opponent has a lot of chances to come back and win. So there its fair i guess.
As I said, blame scheme/map, not the player. It's rather odd that players get insulted for choosing the easiest way to win. League is about winning, remember? :)
Whats odd is everyone behaviour.
Flori, you just seem to be concerned about how people's hopes will get up once they see their in-game times. Solution: just don't expect anything in the case of a tie, until you see the actual times.
In 1v1, what we call draws can actually have time differences of up to 0.98 seconds, and in 2v2, the difference can be up to 1.96 seconds. Everyone should be able to agree that anyone with a better time has objectively performed better than his or her opponent, so the method of judging that should be given preference is exact judging. I think we should just go forward with the rule I proposed, since it still allows people to judge by whole seconds.
What if ps play vs mm in clanner, we do 50.24 and 50.14 vs 50.00 and 50.00.
We absolutely dont know we won before looking replay, ps wants to make it a draw and mm wants to check replay.
What happen ?
In that situation, you can go by the draw rule if you both want, since it's based on whole seconds. But if one side wants to get the exact times, the rule would say that you have to go by the exact times. Of course, the side that wants to check could end up losing. But I would always want to check in clanners either way, since the difference in times can be up to 1.96 secs.
see why I hate rr?
I don't think anyone here can see why you hate rr
I can imagine how do you hate bng then, almog ;D
If the rules of TuS for TTRR from day 1 were check time by MS, I am pretty sure everyone would be fine with it.
I don't find hiding on top in Roper or notching in BnG lame either, again, if everyone was doing these things from day 1, it would be fine.
Like Rene said, blame the map/schemes, and for me more importantly is the rules and people you play with.
I believe in a fair fight, and no matter what your opinion is the objective of a League is to win, not to have fun, you can try to have fun and not try to win, you can try to have fun and win at the same time, or you can do anything humanly possible within the rules to win.
All 3 options should be no problem for everyone to accept, I personally feel that it's rules of this League and the people who play and use/do certain things to get an unfair advantage, that is lame.
For example, if I was playing a TuS Classic 1v1 BnG against some guy who only joined TuS let's say, an hour beforehand, knowing full well that I could easily win 200-0 without notching or repeating, if I chose to use my notching abilities and repeat shots against the opponent, kill him in 6 turns or something, I don't think he would have a very good experience of the game, and even if he did enjoy it, I would still consider it lame because the guy probably thinks I am god or something and all I done was "notch" some 4s FP nades which is one of the easiest things on this planet to do...
But if I was playing Mablak, and we were both notching, both aiming to win, both playing within the rules, what's the problem? It's a really fair fight...
I'd hide on top in Roper against Mablak because we are both very good Ropers, and just securing our lead regardless or luck/mistakes.
I wouldn't really do it against a noob though, i'd showboat a bit and show him it can be fun while he learns to become pro, THEN he can play serious, or not, whatever lol.
If I was to play TTRR against Mablak, and I done 45.56 and he done 45.78 I would consider it as my greatest achievement in TTRR and I would be EXTREMELY pissed off if I had to play him again because some people around here just can't be assed checking a replay...
Shouldn't it be the main purpose of a League, to make sure everyone can enjoy equal competition? The rules make certain players able to get an unfair advantage over other players, regardless who feels what, this shouldn't be tolerated with being a League.
I am guessing anyone on Earth who for some reason suddenly decided they wanted to find out who the best players in the world are for Worms Armageddon, they would come to this very website to find out, because the best of the best play and compete against each other here seriously, if someone asked in #AG "What's the best League to play WA competitively?" I am sure everyone would answer "www.tus-wa.com" not "www.letsallnotgivvaf@#!aboutwinningatwa.com".
Edit: I honestly think, if you can't be assed checking a TTRR replay that takes 1 or 2 minutes, then you simply don't care enough about winning, and if this is true, you certainly shouldn't be wasting your opponents time who actually does take it 100% serious, maybe it's a tiny little bother to check replay, but think about your opponents who are innocently trying to be the best competitive players at this game...
You are literally choosing and holding your own agenda over the truth and reality, that is selfish.
Quote from: Komito on June 27, 2012, 07:12 AM
If the rules of TuS for TTRR from day 1 were check time by MS, I am pretty sure everyone would be fine with it.
I don't find hiding on top in Roper or notching in BnG lame either, again, if everyone was doing these things from day 1, it would be fine.
Like Rene said, blame the map/schemes, and for me more importantly is the rules and people you play with.
I believe in a fair fight, and no matter what your opinion is the objective of a League is to win, not to have fun, you can try to have fun and not try to win, you can try to have fun and win at the same time, or you can do anything humanly possible within the rules to win.
All 3 options should be no problem for everyone to accept, I personally feel that it's rules of this League and the people who play and use/do certain things to get an unfair advantage, that is lame.
For example, if I was playing a TuS Classic 1v1 BnG against some guy who only joined TuS let's say, an hour beforehand, knowing full well that I could easily win 200-0 without notching or repeating, if I chose to use my notching abilities and repeat shots against the opponent, kill him in 6 turns or something, I don't think he would have a very good experience of the game, and even if he did enjoy it, I would still consider it lame because the guy probably thinks I am god or something and all I done was "notch" some 4s FP nades which is one of the easiest things on this planet to do...
But if I was playing Mablak, and we were both notching, both aiming to win, both playing within the rules, what's the problem? It's a really fair fight...
I'd hide on top in Roper against Mablak because we are both very good Ropers, and just securing our lead regardless or luck/mistakes.
I wouldn't really do it against a noob though, i'd showboat a bit and show him it can be fun while he learns to become pro, THEN he can play serious, or not, whatever lol.
If I was to play TTRR against Mablak, and I done 45.56 and he done 45.78 I would consider it as my greatest achievement in TTRR and I would be EXTREMELY pissed off if I had to play him again because some people around here just can't be assed checking a replay...
Shouldn't it be the main purpose of a League, to make sure everyone can enjoy equal competition? The rules make certain players able to get an unfair advantage over other players, regardless who feels what, this shouldn't be tolerated with being a League.
I am guessing anyone on Earth who for some reason suddenly decided they wanted to find out who the best players in the world are for Worms Armageddon, they would come to this very website to find out, because the best of the best play and compete against each other here seriously, if someone asked in #AG "What's the best League to play WA competitively?" I am sure everyone would answer "www.tus-wa.com" not "www.letsallnotgivvaf@#!aboutwinningatwa.com".
Edit: I honestly think, if you can't be assed checking a TTRR replay that takes 1 or 2 minutes, then you simply don't care enough about winning, and if this is true, you certainly shouldn't be wasting your opponents time who actually does take it 100% serious, maybe it's a tiny little bother to check replay, but think about your opponents who are innocently trying to be the best competitive players at this game...
You are literally choosing and holding your own agenda over the truth and reality, that is selfish.
Well you got a nice speech here. But i don't see what the paragraph of the best player of wa is doing here xD Whats the link with rr times xD.
Mab the thing is that a lot of guys will say "lets check replay" only when they know they were close to 50.00 and their opponent close to 51.00 And the opponent, who doesnt care about millisecs, will be f@#!ed on every case like this, when he'd not say to check replay if he was the one close to 50
After some time everyone will check replay coz people womm get pissed of to be f@#!ed like this. Im sure its pretty much the same story that happened in bng when people started notch, or top hiding in roper. Some people started doing it and others were sick to be f@#!ed playing fair so they did it also.
Don't say its not true, im sure some people (i didn't say ALL people) learned notch and started top hiding in roper (and there is probably some others things like this i dont have in mind Edit : molotov block in shoppa) only because they wanted to win and they figured out its the only way they can against notchers/top hidding opponents.
Now it became normal.
Quote from: Komito on June 27, 2012, 07:12 AMShouldn't it be the main purpose of a League, to make sure everyone can enjoy equal competition? The rules make certain players able to get an unfair advantage over other players, regardless who feels what, this shouldn't be tolerated with being a League.
Define unfair advantage. The way I see it the times are just being rounded up at the moment and based on that a winner is picked or a draw is pronounced. I don't really see the issue there. It worked perfect so far, except maybe not for Mablak, but that's another case.
Most players are fine going by the times shown in game. Mablak is the exception afaik, if he wants to go by accurate times than maybe he should agree before the game to check replays with his opponent. If it's made into a rule people like me who are fine with playing as it is now are either forced doing extra work we can't really be arsed about or risk getting screwed over by people who nitpick.
Quote"www.letsallnotgivvaf@#!aboutwinningatwa.com".
You make it seem like people who don't want to make things more complicated/serious/dull are against all kinds of competition. That's just not true. Everybody here knows I love competition.
I just think that for nice competition you need to preserve the part of the game that makes it fun, and a lot of times that fun comes from variation, creativity and pure chance. I don't think I know any boardgame (or CPU game) that solely drives on being a skill contest. There's always some luck involved, some uncontrollable circumstances that affect your performance. Without it every game would be the same and it would just be a matter of working through a certain protocol.
But that has nothing to do with this rule. The question here is, do I mind going with the in-game timer or do I want a more accurate time by going through the extra time and nuissance of checking the replay. (especially in clanners it's annoying to have to leave the game inbetween 2 picks to check the replay.. and even then, players prolly have to discuss what the times really are).
I don't think the game needs to be more complicated than it already is. Even if that means a clan may lose a game when they are really 0.5 sec faster. I can deal with that. It's not the end of the world, it's just the way things are being calculated.
Quoteyour opponents who are innocently trying to be the best competitive players at this game...
It's not as innocent as it seems.. Like I said it's rules like this that take away the fun out of the game.
QuoteYou are literally choosing and holding your own agenda over the truth and reality, that is selfish.
ey, that's my point. >:(
It's selfish to push through a rule only a few people care about and that the rest doesn't need or want.
Quote from: HHC on June 27, 2012, 10:03 AM
Quote from: Komito on June 27, 2012, 07:12 AM
You are literally choosing and holding your own agenda over the truth and reality, that is selfish.
ey, that's my point. >:(
It's selfish to push through a rule only a few people care about and that the rest doesn't need or want.
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.
The rest, is pretty much difference of opinion I feel there is no need to debate anymore about that.
I don't want to sound like a broken record but I want to highlight something because it seems it wasn't clear or it was quickly forgotten:
the extra work argument is kind of moot, guys, you're sounding like mexicans. How many draws do you think that might occur to you during a season?
I think Mablak :-* would have made this thread as soon as it happened to him and it's been how long?
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.
2 years i'm repeating at school and you try to convince me by maths. Your post look like a chinese message to me.
Hah sorry. It just means this: including draws gives the better player a slightly better chance of winning, than if you just went by exact times. And the effect is slightly more pronounced in 2v2, because you can tie with a larger difference between times.
Why is it you guys are saying it bothers you so much to check a replay for milliseconds, yet you would be happy enough to go checking through a replay if there was a possible cow on a crucial turn of a game, for example, a grenade done a sitter in a BnG for 0.26s or 0.24s but the rules account only for 0.25s.
In a WxW for example, the recent WxW Tournament I done which was Masta Vs guuuria, and it was guuurias turn, she didn't technically touch the far wall, because checking it in the slowest framerate in the replay, you can see the worm touched the roof, not the wall, the sound did not activate until the roof was touched, but because some of the worms sprite was layering over the wall, MonkeyIsland allowed it and guuuria got the win, everyone was happy to check this and wait, and it took around 6 minutes or something to come to a decision.
You guys are being kinda, innocently hypocritical I think, like, you already do similar stuff but don't realise the similarities.
TTRR should be MS for both 1v1/2v2.
We should be thinking "Specifically, did they win or not?" Not, "Well, they were close enough let's just allow it..."
Quote from: Mablak on June 28, 2012, 02:46 AM
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.
This is perfectly logical but, at the same time, no one would agree on, which proves to me that checking ds in all rr's is the right thing to do if you use a detached approach to the scheme.
At the same time, draws are fun and make things exciting, but arent 100% fair for the person who had the fastest time but was still within the same second of the opponent.
My solution would be this:
- Use ds on 1v1
only to judge a winner after 4-5 draws
for the same game, and
- Use ds on 2v2
all the time because of the big error it can leave.
Nonetheless, I cant see why would anyone fix what isnt broken. I'd say opponents simply state beforehand their intentions on the subject and go on, kinda like an agreement to add inf teles in TUS bng for example.
Just a note: 1ms = 1/1000s. WA shows only hundredths of seconds (1cs = 1/100s). So 34.56 = 34 seconds and 560 milliseconds, but not 56ms. So be careful with calling it "ms" :P Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second#SI_multiples)
Yeh yeh, didnt sleep enough last night, "centiseconds" it is.
*EDIT* wrong again haha, I'll try get some sleep before posting again
Quote from: Komito on June 28, 2012, 05:48 AM
Why is it you guys are saying it bothers you so much to check a replay for milliseconds, yet you would be happy enough to go checking through a replay if there was a possible cow on a crucial turn of a game, for example, a grenade done a sitter in a BnG for 0.26s or 0.24s but the rules account only for 0.25s.
In a WxW for example, the recent WxW Tournament I done which was Masta Vs guuuria, and it was guuurias turn, she didn't technically touch the far wall, because checking it in the slowest framerate in the replay, you can see the worm touched the roof, not the wall, the sound did not activate until the roof was touched, but because some of the worms sprite was layering over the wall, MonkeyIsland allowed it and guuuria got the win, everyone was happy to check this and wait, and it took around 6 minutes or something to come to a decision.
You guys are being kinda, innocently hypocritical I think, like, you already do similar stuff but don't realise the similarities.
TTRR should be MS for both 1v1/2v2.
We should be thinking "Specifically, did they win or not?" Not, "Well, they were close enough let's just allow it..."
You don't know me well komo because i'd NEVER look the time of a sit or looking replay if the guy hit the roof or did a knock on ground. Its fine for me its involuntary and i accept mistakes like that.
I repeat myself but last rr vs daina for example :
https://www.tus-wa.com/leagues/game-115729/
2 draws.
1st game. I draw on last worm im damn f@#!ing happy.
2st game. She draws on last worm she is f@#!ing happy AND i think something like "damn what a bitch i wanna own her so hard on 3rd game"
I always prefer 1-2 or more draws in rr than 1 game. This add so much excitation and fun.
Damn it i prefer 100 times a game (any schemes) not usual and exciting even if i lose it at the end than winning a basic game.
An other example : In roper if i lose in sd by after 10 turns because it was damn hard to do the w2w and my opponent was better than me at this, i had a lot of fun and excitation on this fight and i prefer this than winning in 5 minutes because my opponent sucked.
I understand you can think this is not right, that by the law of physics you shouldn't risk to lose the game whereas u had a better time on 1st game, but for me the feeling i have when me or opponent draw on last worm is so good that we shouldnt take it off by changing the rule...It'll break somehow the fun of the schemes.
Anyway, im sure there is more players that prefer keep the usual rule 1v1 (about 2v2 i can understand a little modification) than changing to milliseconds.
We could just do a vote tho, i feel like we can do 10 more pages in the topic and not advance.
You know, it's not draws specifically that are adding fun. It's the game being longer, getting more turns. Why not just play a given match as best of 3? Or even best of 5? You can pretty much choose the length of the game if it feels too short for you.
Its not the same feeling at all playing 3 rr when there was a draw on the 2 1st game and when u just play 3 different games not connected.
Sure i prefer to play 3 games than 1, i like a lot more playing 1 game after 2 draws.
But you got a nice idea i'll ask all fans of rr to do bo3/5 in tus/trl. :d
Can I make another senseless comparison? In t17 when both last worms plop, they don't do it synchronously. So the winner should be the last one who plops :D Because another 40min game is *****!!
I think Random DID brought up a good point by head-hitting, when the timer goes off by worm hitting his head before finish, that is not the worm physical-reality-true time, is it? If we're about to check replays to find the exact time, shouldn't we also check the exact time when the worm touches finish not when the turn ended by head hitting? I'm trying to say that the real time of turn time is still our definition of it. Our definition could be whole seconds or hundredth of seconds. I was in favor of hundredth of seconds till Random brought up head-hitting.
Anyway I think we're going in circles. In my point of view, if a rule is gonna be set, it should be summed up to this:
Before the game, agree on the definition of the best time: going by whole seconds or hundredth of seconds. (or counting the exact time worm touches finish despite of what timer says)
@MI
Worms races isnt really races since it is turn-based. I mean physical finish would have a meaning if it would be real time. But worms races based on times of run. So those head-hitting is just such a part of run, that asks some skill for that. I explained that shitty, but I hope you undestand what I mean xD
Quote from: MonkeyIsland on June 28, 2012, 08:11 AM
I think Random DID brought up a good point by head-hitting, when the timer goes off by worm hitting his head before finish, that is not the worm physical-reality-true time, is it? If we're about to check replays to find the exact time, shouldn't we also check the exact time when the worm touches finish not when the turn ended by head hitting? I'm trying to say that the real time of turn time is still our definition of it. Our definition could be whole seconds or hundredth of seconds. I was in favor of hundredth of seconds till Random brought up head-hitting.
Anyway I think we're going in circles. In my point of view, if a rule is gonna be set, it should be summed up to this:
Before the game, agree on the definition of the best time: going by whole seconds or hundredth of seconds. (or counting the exact time worm touches finish despite of what timer says)
I'd be fine with or without head hitting. But it adds a small bit of skill to the game in almost all situations, people have to know how to control their worm well to pull it off. It often involves taking a moderate risk for little gain, and it allows for interesting comebacks on occasion. In contrast, judging by whole seconds reduces skill in all situations, or rather, causes us to judge skill incorrectly.
Your version of the rule has a problem MI, people are lazy. They often don't even specify what will count as hitting the finish, at the start of the game. I mean, you have to have a standard means of measurement in case they don't specify anything, or in case they disagree. I'd be fine with this, if the standard is exact times.
Quote from: Statik on June 28, 2012, 07:53 AM
Can I make another senseless comparison? In t17 when both last worms plop, they don't do it synchronously. So the winner should be the last one who plops :D Because another 40min game is *****!!
Hah, cool and I see what you're saying. Except because worms is a turn based game, this idea kind of treats worms like a real time game. But nice thinking.
when does a worm touch something? when there is virtual contact? ergo, hitbox vs hitbox, or when there is visual contact (worm has visual "mass" that goes through hitboxes)?
Quote from: ropa on June 28, 2012, 11:04 AM
when does a worm touch something? when there is virtual contact? ergo, hitbox vs hitbox, or when there is visual contact (worm has visual "mass" that goes through hitboxes)?
In solving complaints, we've count a contact when the collision mask ("hitbox") touches terrain, not the sprite.
Quote from: Rok on June 28, 2012, 11:46 AM
Quote from: ropa on June 28, 2012, 11:04 AM
when does a worm touch something? when there is virtual contact? ergo, hitbox vs hitbox, or when there is visual contact (worm has visual "mass" that goes through hitboxes)?
In solving complaints, we've count a contact when the collision mask ("hitbox") touches terrain, not the sprite.
In that case then, guuuria should not have won the WxW round between Masta Vs Guuuria, they were both around 20hp, she touched the roof not the wall but the sprite overlapped the wall, MI awarded guuuria the win, I can see why, but at the same time, close but no cigar, if it doesn't hit, it's a miss, by how much should be irrelevant.
I made it clear at the time, I thought guurias turn should be considered a miss and same hp's rematch with mastas turn, but I also made it clear I fully support MI's decision.
Quote from: Rok on June 28, 2012, 11:46 AM
In solving complaints, we've count a contact when the collision mask ("hitbox") touches terrain, not the sprite.
How do you judge then? There's no DEFINITE way of judging by the eye if the worms hitbox has touched something (mainly because you can't see the hitbox), so you're either going by sound (which I'm not sure works in all cases, I'll find out, though) or by judging the worm's movement after the contact (eg: if it bounces back it means it has touched).
edit: going by sound can result in a bad complaint resolution:
<CyberShadow> like I said, when you're hanging against a wall, you're actually bouncing against it at a very small scale
<CyberShadow> and you don't hear any sound then
Quote from: ropa on June 28, 2012, 02:42 PM
How do you judge then? There's no DEFINITE way of judging by the eye if the worms hitbox has touched something (mainly because you can't see the hitbox), so you're either going by sound (which I'm not sure works in all cases, I'll find out, though) or by judging the worm's movement after the contact (eg: if it bounces back it means it has touched).
I never judged by sound. Watching the sprite turn around/change orientation, as you said, turned out to be accurate enough in cases encountered so far. I'm talking about rope races, to be clear. Judging whether a worm touched a wall in wxw could be trickier, but I'm sure it could be accurately tested offline, by comparing pictures, say.
@Komo. I'm not familiar with that game, can't say why MI decided the way he did.
Neither do I, but I trust him.
Quote from: Rok on June 28, 2012, 02:52 PM
I'm sure it could be accurately tested offline, by comparing pictures, say.
No, you can't. Not even in rope races. Imagine this:
|
|
|
|
x............
| E N D |
.............
The worm is coming from the right, to the left, very fast, attaches the rope on the roof and swings with speed and bounces against the "x". How are you certain the hitbox has touch the end? It might have not. Even if you do it frame by frame you can't know. You need to be able to see collision masks, and you can't, yet. Same applies to WxW.
You don't see the hitbox, but you could draw it.
See here: http://worms2d.info/User:Etho/Physics_Engine (http://worms2d.info/User:Etho/Physics_Engine) There's worm collision mask drawn at the bottom of the page. Now the worm's sprite rotates during gameplay, but collision mask doesn't (I don't recall the source of this info). By comparing screenshots of the game to a picture of collision mask, I think it's perfectly possible to find out what bit of land it touched.
Quote from: Rok on June 28, 2012, 04:13 PM
You don't see the hitbox, but you could draw it.
See here: http://worms2d.info/User:Etho/Physics_Engine (http://worms2d.info/User:Etho/Physics_Engine) There's worm collision mask drawn at the bottom of the page. Now the worm's sprite rotates during gameplay, but collision mask doesn't (I don't recall the source of this info). By comparing screenshots of the game to a picture of collision mask, I think it's perfectly possible to find out what bit of land it touched.
Oh that makes sense. If you can do this if required then I guess there's no loop.
Lets cut out TTRR and go back to regular RR?
Quote from: Crazy on June 28, 2012, 07:43 PM
Lets cut out TTRR and go back to regular RR?
That's the solution ;) Cut out TTRR and let's play Tower ;)
Quote from: Crazy on June 28, 2012, 07:43 PM
Lets cut out TTRR and go back to regular RR?
And regular marriage
It might be a bit offtopic, but:
Quote from: Mablak on June 28, 2012, 02:46 AM
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%.
You're assuming that the chances will go from 82.5% for A and 17.5% for B to 80% for A, 15% for B and 5% draw, which is not logical imo. Let's say a draw is what it is now (players finishing in the same second), then chances that A finishes first in this second are higher than 50%. If B has not some super mental power which makes him stronger in close situations, A should even be first in 82.5% of the cases. Which means that draws wouldn't change anything at the winning percentage.
Even if B would perform better in close game than he usually does, the winning percentage for A just slightly increases. And you chose a pretty high winning percentage for A as an example.
To sum it up: I don't think draws have practical influence (less than 1%) on the outcome of a game.
And also:
Quote from: Statik on June 28, 2012, 06:36 AM
Just a note: 1ms = 1/1000s. WA shows only hundredths of seconds (1cs = 1/100s). So 34.56 = 34 seconds and 560 milliseconds, but not 56ms. So be careful with calling it "ms" :P Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second#SI_multiples)
Quote from: Worms2d.info
Each turn is divided in frames, at a rate of 50 frames per second.
source: http://worms2d.info/Replay_file
Quote from: Crazy on June 28, 2012, 07:43 PM
Lets cut out TTRR and go back to regular RR?
30sec would be awesome for me! People arn't used to the pressure of your time running out and having no where to safely place your worm as your speeding up the tallest climb! I may start picking 30sec rr and bring it back 8)
I could host a 30 sec RR cup, chicken :)
Quote from: ropa on June 28, 2012, 08:11 PM
Quote from: Crazy on June 28, 2012, 07:43 PM
Lets cut out TTRR and go back to regular RR?
And regular marriage
What an irrelevant low blow Ropa. Suffering from what, egodystonic homophobia, or something else?
Quote from: Chicken23 on June 28, 2012, 09:56 PM
30sec would be awesome for me! People arn't used to the pressure of your time running out and having no where to safely place your worm as your speeding up the tallest climb! I may start picking 30sec rr and bring it back 8)
Go for it Tom, you have my support :D
Quote from: Random00 on June 28, 2012, 09:13 PM
You're assuming that the chances will go from 82.5% for A and 17.5% for B to 80% for A, 15% for B and 5% draw, which is not logical imo. Let's say a draw is what it is now (players finishing in the same second), then chances that A finishes first in this second are higher than 50%. If B has not some super mental power which makes him stronger in close situations, A should even be first in 82.5% of the cases. Which means that draws wouldn't change anything at the winning percentage.
Even if B would perform better in close game than he usually does, the winning percentage for A just slightly increases. And you chose a pretty high winning percentage for A as an example.
To sum it up: I don't think draws have practical influence (less than 1%) on the outcome of a game.
Hrm nevermind, that was stupid of me to assume, clearly more wins than losses on player A's side would be converted to draws. Although, I'm not sure it's true that 82.5% of those draws would've been wins, I'd probably need to prove it. Would help if I could look at a concrete example, but I don't have any software to plot normal distributions like Mathematica anymore >_o.
Quote from: Mablak on June 26, 2012, 12:24 AM
This discussion has happened before, but I'm not sure why there's still no rule about it. We should add a rule allowing teams to judge times in RR by fractions of a second whenever they wish. It's not a huge problem when you tie by the whole second in 1v1 RRs, since whoever really won is just going to get a tie instead.
But in 2v2 rrs, the team that really won has a chance of turning into the losing team. If one side got times of 31.1 and 30.1 and the other side got times of 30.9 and 30.9, the times would look like 61 versus 60, when it was really 61.2 versus 61.8.
"Times are measured by the whole second you finish on. However, if one team requests it (within 5 minutes of the game being finished), times must be judged exactly, by checking the replay."
Does anybody have any problem with just adding this in?
Good idea!
Use "wkCheatPack.dll" problem are solved, u don´t need to check replay after. And let hope CS will add this "sec time + (wkrubber31.dll)" features in next update! And remove/disable wormkit.exe coz of cheat add-on stuff.
hmm well I suppose the default ruling should be how it currently is, but there are definitely enough people who want to use exact times, so MonkeyIsland can we include this in the rules? If both sides agree before the game, they can use exact times.
And now that I think about it more, if exact times are agreed upon, they should be truly exact --> meaning exactly when the worm animation changes touching the finish (so if a turn ends early with a head hit, you must add any extra time to your score). sure there is a little risk/reward using the early fall strat, but if we're truly wanting to be exact, it should be when the worm touches finish.
Hf counting 0.02*X by pressing S in the replay, in some map u win around 2 sec by a kick, and u want to count it.
Wow what a loss of time.
Quote from: franz on July 04, 2012, 02:58 PM
hmm well I suppose the default ruling should be how it currently is, but there are definitely enough people who want to use exact times, so MonkeyIsland can we include this in the rules? If both sides agree before the game, they can use exact times.
No need to write it in rules. You always have been able to use exact times if both sides want it. Nobody gonna complain^^.
Quote from: franz on July 04, 2012, 02:58 PM
hmm well I suppose the default ruling should be how it currently is, but there are definitely enough people who want to use exact times, so MonkeyIsland can we include this in the rules? If both sides agree before the game, they can use exact times.
And now that I think about it more, if exact times are agreed upon, they should be truly exact --> meaning exactly when the worm animation changes touching the finish (so if a turn ends early with a head hit, you must add any extra time to your score). sure there is a little risk/reward using the early fall strat, but if we're truly wanting to be exact, it should be when the worm touches finish.
Its impossible to do that franz: Imagine you stop timer on ceiling and worm flies to Finish. Using "S" you could find the frame the worm touches the finishline but you wont be able to see the time cause the timer would've been stopped and do you really wanna use the total game timer to add any time lost to the turn time? I sure as hell dont xd
it's more just a matter of being exact. I think it's fair to count every moment in time until the worm physically touches finish. that's how every other race in the world works, and I think if you're already checking exact times in a replay, you should be able to add the extra miniseconds after hitting your head. it's not that hard. I suppose players could agree on this as well before the game starts if it's also divided.
"i pick rr"
"ok, exact times?"
"yes/no"
"when timer stops?"
"yes/no"
if no one asks anything, then it's just same normal rules as we've done.
and if Flori is right, then I guess we can already start asking these things. if players agree, go ahead.