Checking times in RR

[Aerox]

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?

[TheKomodo]

Ok fair enough, i'll keep it in my thoughts in future, or try.

[HHC]

Yeah sorry Mab, was more a figure of speech.

[Free]

So should we make a poll about this?

[Flori]

Yeah MI that's what i tried to say somewhere but you explained it better.
Thats more draws. I like this count.

[Mablak]

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.

[Flori]

Easy to change, but not everyone agrees to change.

[Aerox]

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?

[Statik]

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.

[Aerox]

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.

[sock]

I like draws.... its fun

[Maciej]

I have no problem with current system, it's clear and nobody complain about it, so why should we look for problems?

[Aerox]

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

[NAiL]

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.

[Dub-c]

If you can't tell in game who won the game, without going to replays, then the scheme is retarded.