|
Post by Zemke on Jun 3, 2011 18:04:56 GMT
Should there be Home and Away games? I have some points against it and want people's minds to refresh.
It has been part of CWT since the beginning that players had to clash twice in group stage. It seems kinda odd to me, CWT is the only tournament I know of, that has ever had a home-away-system and people seem to be alright without it. Competitors are able to arrange a fair game everywhere, the host changes is an invalid argument to me. Especially because it is not always possible to change the host.
Contrary to this it'd be much easier to keep everything in organization. Users of the website had to overview 96 games and were surely not able to rate, comment and even less watch games. So the comment and rate system didn't work out as it was supposed to. An absurdity of last year is that only 8 out of 90 games were won by the loser of the first game. It's like playing 82 times in vain.
|
|
|
Post by khamski on Jun 3, 2011 18:41:32 GMT
Home and Away are alright by all means.
Problem is the host.
My greatest hope is that 2 technologies of a new WA era will submerge.
Hosting buddy and Game continue function
Hosting buddy is a perfect register. It will always tell who disconnected and stuff like this. The only problem is that they still didnt make it work right. Didnt create an effective and easy hb control inteface.
|
|
|
Post by Zemke on Jun 3, 2011 18:54:54 GMT
"Are alright"? Sounds like you'd not mind an abolition.
|
|
|
Post by khamski on Jun 3, 2011 19:53:19 GMT
what then?
playing bo5?
have a fear that there will be a lot of unfinished matches.
hmm.. well.. not that scary.
hell why not?
i start to like 1-game idea
|
|
|
Post by Zemke on Jun 3, 2011 20:50:02 GMT
Yes, best of five, just like in playoff.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2011 21:55:30 GMT
I get your point, from the point of view of an admin That means a lot of less work and game matching. Let's await what the majority says. 1x bo5 -> maximal 5 played rounds 2xbo3 -> maximal 6 played rounds And what point system do you suggest then? Keeping the used way of giving 1 point for 1 positive round?
|
|
|
Post by Ivo on Jun 3, 2011 22:34:17 GMT
I subscribe totally Zemke's first post words. It's exactly what I think about home and away games. I just think that a possibility of a break during the bo5 should be allowed because, a bo5 game can take easily 2h30 (not counting with draws). Just too little offtopics: I think draws replays should be updated too and that players shouldn't be allowed to rate their own games.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2011 22:57:05 GMT
Just too little offtopics: I think draws replays should be updated too and that players shouldn't be allowed to rate their own games. 1) Is already in plannings. 2) I disagree a bit. I would like to rate my games. I think they can rate objectivly aswell.
|
|
|
Post by Zemke on Jun 3, 2011 23:25:35 GMT
1) Definitely. 2) I think someone who played the game is the best to rate the game. But I know you're not alone with this suggestion.
|
|
|
Post by Ivo on Jun 4, 2011 9:31:02 GMT
2) I think someone who played the game is the best to rate the game. This time, I completely disagree ;D Well, it isn't very important for me this but, I think there's no better than a neutral spectator to rate a game that he spectated live or after. I think the persons who played it can become too emotional about the game and exaggerate with a underrated or overrated grade. I already noticed it last year edition, when an average player win a match against a top player, he tends to think that was a great game, even if it was a game full of mistakes. And when certain players lost games, they usually think that was (the well known sentence) "worst game ever". But, well, again, not so important
|
|
|
Post by Domi on Jun 12, 2011 12:24:52 GMT
I am neutral on this matter.
On one hand, it's not a coincidence that CWT is the only big competition that implements this kind of organization. For the sake of simplicity, people tend to reach an agreement for the games' host, most of the times offering better network conditions.
On the other hand, it's kind of a tradition of ours. And a tradition that has been going well. This may not seem like a good enough argument for some, but for others it's very relevant. So, if we want to change the (good) way this tourney has been organized and played, we should be sure that it is going to be for the best.
|
|
|
Post by Zemke on Jun 12, 2011 13:11:44 GMT
[15:04:27] <@zemke> Hmm... lol. [15:04:57] <@zemke> What a dilemma. [15:05:04] <@zemke> I don't know what to do now. [15:06:08] <@zemke> Anyway, we end up having the same. [15:06:25] <@zemke> With Home and Away people play a bo7 or something. [15:06:46] <@zemke> With the new rule applying they'd play a bo5. [15:07:11] <@zemke> As Ivo said, people can still interrupt the game and go on playing another day, maybe even another host. [15:08:17] <@zemke> It's just not like we have a strict rule about that. Because a rule would be nonsense. We're not in football where they change town, stadium... [15:10:14] <@zemke> Anyway, Joschi's the final say.
|
|
|
Post by chuvash on Jun 14, 2011 13:11:48 GMT
I love CWT home-away system!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2011 14:46:35 GMT
On the other hand, it's kind of a tradition of ours. And a tradition that has been going well. History of CWT contradicts you, mate. Last years remake was an exception. The troubles always started during the group stage, because of the very big amount of games. I can hardly remember at a tournament, where, of course only few cases, not the quality, but the quantity of played games decided about the entry into 1/8 finals. It might have happend, that in individual cases, the player with more games forwarded and the other player got in disadvantage because of less played games.
|
|
|
Post by Domi on Jun 14, 2011 15:15:45 GMT
Maybe it didn't go so well. But then again, it is not guaranteed that it was the system's fault.
Perhaps this change can be good, but I'm just saying that we should evaluate the system knowing that there are a large number of players behind. What I mean is that the less success of a tournament doesn't neccessarily mean that the system is bad.
And again, let me say that I'm neutral here... I see good points on both sides.
|
|