If you guys ever do a 2vs2vs2 with weapons enabled, please record videos,
for it'll be total chaos, basically you'll be shooting at everyone except your
1 teammate :D
Printable View
If you guys ever do a 2vs2vs2 with weapons enabled, please record videos,
for it'll be total chaos, basically you'll be shooting at everyone except your
1 teammate :D
It's a team game, and the recommendation was to register enough players so that you have backups and things come off without a hitch. If a team chooses to not register enough players then they're penalizing themselves from the beginning. Take any real world sport - if the star player gets injured then that's just tough. Someone takes their place. The opposition doesn't wait around until the star player recovers. So LUNA's PS3 broke. Where are the backup players? It's unfortunate, but you wouldn't want people to start making excuses so that they could do a 2v2 in the knowledge that they'll be better off. At the moment I wouldn't expect that from anyone here, but if the tournament develops into something bigger then I think it has to be a bit tougher.Quote:
Originally Posted by djKyoto
But I guess you're right in terms of the reason why less than a 4v4 is carried out. It's a two way street and it will not always be clear which team was the reason that a full game couldn't be carried out. So I suppose you can't penalize teams for doing 3v3. But that raises the question should a 4v3 be carried out if one team can't get the players together? That's the only way to auto-penalize a team for not having enough players. But I think the best option is that next time we make sure there are 8 regularly available players available for every team - and create 'joint venture' teams to make sure that happens. Then hopefully 4v4 can always be done and easy tie breakers can be based on number of total points.
So for now:
I think it would be best to do a playoff as a 2v2v2. Given how the matches were all a bit different, it looks now that anything based on points would be unfair.
Totally agree with you Saturn, but I think they should do a 4v4 and if they can't field a full team then hard cheese. Austria had to drop out because they couldn't get a full roster together. I know Australia can get by without Luna as there are plenty others that can step in.
Not sure about this 2v2v2 thing though. It was meant to be 4v4 and i think it should stay that way. 2 per team turns it into everyone-for-themselves and not a team game anymore. As I said the lag in England when playing the japanese is bad enough, throw in the Ausses and it will be hell.
It's up to the teams involved in the end though.
I agree, a mutual decision between those three teams is best. But what happens if they play each other again and it's a tie again after that?
It wouldn't be if they just add up the total points from both games they have. Even if you lost one match that was close, you could still go through by doing well in the other match. Of course you would need to field the full compliment of pilots to have any chance ;)
Ah OK, I hadn't quite understood that part. Although as 3 teams are involved, I think it could still lead to a draw right, if each team comes out on top against one other team across both matches? This is assuming a 3 points for a win type format again. If you just purely take total points, then it could raise the same issues if teams can't always play 4v4. I just think it could take a while to do 3 more 4v4 matches, and in the mean time Group A teams have to wait. Potentially losing momentum. Although the longer it all takes, the better it is for the Dutch to be honest, for one specific reason I won't give away. :P I might just be missing something though. Anyway, I'll leave it to you guys to sort it out now as I've put in more than my 2 cents already. :)
Here's a wild idea which is a bit over the top, but means no one in group B would be unhappy (but maybe group A would). Instead of having a knock out semi-final there could be another group stage with 5 teams instead of 4, with the highest scoring teams going into the final. Although this way would be too problematic as we could end up with another tie and go through this all over again... :(
I was thinking just the normal scores, 8 for a win etc. The chances of it being drawn after that are very slim I would of thought. You would make sure you had 4 players available otherwise you would have no chance. I know what you mean about the time frame, it would take a while to get it organized.
What's the reason? :) Sounds ominous.
I'll say no more as well, I'm not even in the comp :(
Amorbis -- Are you suggesting we make TFD, the English, AUZ, the Japanese, and NAWT all face each other and have the 2 teams with the highest win ratio go to the finals (in case of a tie, we'd use the points scored in the matches to determine the winner) ?
You're right about some people in group A may be unhappy with that idea b/c TFD and NA won our spots w/o any problems. I'm fine with that idea, but I'd suggest you ok it with other Group A team members. Your plan would require 10 more races til we go to the final match whereas AUZ, Japan, and England facing each other would have 3 races and a there'd be a total of 5 til the final tourney.
I'd be comfortable with any decision; I have no better suggestions. Should we ask members of each team to vote on a : 2v2v2 , JAP/AUZ/ENG , or all 5 teams to solve the problem.
I wouldn't like that option to be honest. It takes a lot of effort to arrange the matches and I think it would just drag out. It doesn't represent a solution either because the same thing could happen again. Another problem - France. Why should the top 3 teams from Group B go through and only the top 2 from Group A? When does it end? I don't think changing the match format half way through would be right. Whatever happens, there needs to be some kind of tie breaker.
That sounds reasonable. We should keep the current format and decide whether to do a 2v2v2 tourney or 3 races to determine the 2 teams of group B that carry on. The highest win ratio and if necessary, the total amount of points scored in each match will determine the 2 teams that carry on. There are enough players from each team to put 4 out on the track. For this idea, we should use a 'set' number of players for the matches.
I'm sure this is the fairest solution for now. A 2v2v2 match might be easier to organized unless all 3 races are held in one day.
We may still be able to use points. Was the smallest matchup a 3v3? If so, could we add all the points of the top three players for each team in all matches played and do it like that? The spreadsheets should be available for each round so it's possible to do.
The match format definitely isnt being changed now.
Best bet is, in my opinion, a 2vs2vs2 or simply counting up all the total scores between each other.
If ANZ played all 3 matches with 3 players id be happier with that to be honest, or even if just 1 match was 4, remove the lowest scoring player from every game. Right at the beginning we said match replaying was an absolute last resort.
By the looks of things if we can't agree on a points made decision the 2vs2vs2 will have to take place. We can't really do a top three players total as ANZAC played Scotland as a 2vs2.
The most viable option at the moment would be the two player race, but even that might not work out so well. I can't think of any better ideas.
I'm blaming OBH for this whole shenanigans. :P
A 2v2v2 would be pretty epic, if it must come down to that.
You guys never had a full bloody team :D
The point tally goes - 1. England 2. Japan 3. ANZ
Would have been an easy peesy solution if you had a full team! :g
----------
Anyway lets try and get this sorted quickly though. A quick look at the MVP list shows that 2 players from each team have scored MVPs. I propose why not put all 6 of those players into a tourny to see who goes through????
So essentially itll be
Greenix & Hellfire VS reach-big7 & rerealm VS djKyoto & Luna
I dont know how bad japans lag is when we host, but i found ANZ hosting to be absolutely fine, so Hellfire then djKyoto hosting makes sense to me.
Any objections?
edit:
Also the final 2 positions have been decided :beer
10th place) Austria
9th place) Scotland
Nordic and Italy can compete as and when they chose for 8th and 7th positions!
We actually had a full team against Nordic & Scotland (and half of England).
We ended up with 9 registered players 2 of which I've never heard of 4 of which never raced at all. Now one canceled on the last few races due to undisclosed personal reasons which is fair enough I guess then there were of course timezone issues with AUZ and JPN. Or people just not showing.
I won't be racing for Scotland next year if at all, I'll be a sub for some other country if anyone wants me lol.
Pheew! Not an easy one here but, I also think the 2v2v2 is the best option. Maybe with all teams hosting 5 tracks, which leaves only 1 track to be hosted by a team that is chosen by a toss? Not playing the last track is no option IMHO.
Good luck to all.
None, part from this.Quote:
Originally Posted by osama bin haydn
I'm never on when reach-big7 is on, we had this issue earlier.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aka-sho