Upvote Upvoted 4 Downvote Downvoted
30 mins vs American style
1
#1
0 Frags +

its kinda weird how we play different rulesets from eachother especially when thinking about international lans. it changes the pace of the game and it would be better if we just had one.

wats the idea behind each one?

personally i think americans is better

its kinda weird how we play different rulesets from eachother especially when thinking about international lans. it changes the pace of the game and it would be better if we just had one.

wats the idea behind each one?

personally i think americans is better
2
#2
11 Frags +

a half time allows teams to discuss whats going wrong (or right) on the map mid match
30 mins flat allows for shorter maps or for a bo2 map system which can allow teams who are good on certain maps to have a better chance against other teams on a given week

imo the american system usually leads to really late night matches so sometimes that has been annoying in my experience but otherwise i think its fine

a half time allows teams to discuss whats going wrong (or right) on the map mid match
30 mins flat allows for shorter maps or for a bo2 map system which can allow teams who are good on certain maps to have a better chance against other teams on a given week

imo the american system usually leads to really late night matches so sometimes that has been annoying in my experience but otherwise i think its fine
3
#3
2 Frags +

5 is a bit of an arbitrary number of round wins tbh but american style is pretty good

5 is a bit of an arbitrary number of round wins tbh but american style is pretty good
4
#4
-2 Frags +

wat number would u rather space? i think 5 is not too little and not too much

playing 1 map per week i think is better easier to scrim gives teams enough time to think about how theyre gonna play it wasier to introduce new maps

wat number would u rather space? i think 5 is not too little and not too much

playing 1 map per week i think is better easier to scrim gives teams enough time to think about how theyre gonna play it wasier to introduce new maps
5
#5
11 Frags +

From the perspective of a spectator, seeing the same map being played for a full hour gets a bit boring, though idk how much this actually happens with NA ruleset.

From the perspective of a spectator, seeing the same map being played for a full hour gets a bit boring, though idk how much this actually happens with NA ruleset.
6
#6
30 Frags +

Having played both, I think the NA ruleset is better from the perspective of competition for the 1 match because if you lose the half you don't automatically lose points. That being said, it's fucking awful for best of 3s and scrimming the same map every day for a week is much less fun.

Having played both, I think the NA ruleset is better from the perspective of competition for the 1 match because if you lose the half you don't automatically lose points. That being said, it's fucking awful for best of 3s and scrimming the same map every day for a week is much less fun.
7
#7
2 Frags +

Eu ruleset gives more garbage time, you can be down 4-0 with 5 mins left on the timer multiple times in one match vs the first half instantly ending at first to 3 giving half as much of an opportunity for garbage time, and garbage time is something that should very much be avoided in my opinion.

Half time allows teams to have time to make counter strategies. There are a lot of examples of teams winning or having a much stronger second half and they aren't punished for losing the first half with less points for playoffs/seeding.

ETF2L's point system is better than RGL's, but I think it could be better. RGL's point system is terrible because your win/loss actually doesn't matter and points are all there is(honestly not sure if this is how eu works or not, if it is I know the way ETF2L distributes points is better). This makes some dumb seeding situations where a team with a worse record can make playoffs over somebody else which punishes teams with a lot of close matches or teams who end up winning by a small amount of rounds. Record should be used first for seeding and the point system used for tiebreakers.

More of a personal opinion, but I also really dislike how in the eu ruleset you can have a game where the teams end up going 1-1 for maps in a match and leads to this really awkward feeling of not having won or lost, it's much better to have a clear winner in a match.

I've played both systems although only like a season and a half of eu ruleset and a lot more na

Eu ruleset gives more garbage time, you can be down 4-0 with 5 mins left on the timer multiple times in one match vs the first half instantly ending at first to 3 giving half as much of an opportunity for garbage time, and garbage time is something that should very much be avoided in my opinion.

Half time allows teams to have time to make counter strategies. There are a lot of examples of teams winning or having a much stronger second half and they aren't punished for losing the first half with less points for playoffs/seeding.

ETF2L's point system is better than RGL's, but I think it could be better. RGL's point system is terrible because your win/loss actually doesn't matter and points are all there is(honestly not sure if this is how eu works or not, if it is I know the way ETF2L distributes points is better). This makes some dumb seeding situations where a team with a worse record can make playoffs over somebody else which punishes teams with a lot of close matches or teams who end up winning by a small amount of rounds. Record should be used first for seeding and the point system used for tiebreakers.

More of a personal opinion, but I also really dislike how in the eu ruleset you can have a game where the teams end up going 1-1 for maps in a match and leads to this really awkward feeling of not having won or lost, it's much better to have a clear winner in a match.

I've played both systems although only like a season and a half of eu ruleset and a lot more na
8
#8
8 Frags +

garbage time is like the only thing worse about the eu config imo. would be cool if someone could make a tftrue plugin or something that just times the game to 0 once its impossible for a team to win

garbage time is like the only thing worse about the eu config imo. would be cool if someone could make a tftrue plugin or something that just times the game to 0 once its impossible for a team to win
9
#9
7 Frags +

Broken record, etc. etc. but I like EU/AU ruleset more than the NA variant. My experience with EU ruleset is half a year in AsiaFortress way back in 2014 and the last three RGB LANs.

Halftime is useful but our game is slow enough as is. Teams who can improve on-the-fly have an advantage, as they should. Allow a tactical pause for each match with a limit of like five minutes as a pseudo-halftime. LANs already use the EU ruleset (with minor tweaks sometimes). Organizing matches, casts, events, etc. are easier when the longest a game could go is 30 minutes.

We need to experiment with 20 minute halves. That's the only compromise I can think of between the two rulesets. Run some invitational just to test the waters. But ultimately with how "fractured" NA and EU are I don't think it matters in the long run...old habits are fucking hard to change.

(Not commenting on the point system that's in place in RGL because that shit is wack and has already been brought up countless times.)

Broken record, etc. etc. but I like EU/AU ruleset more than the NA variant. My experience with EU ruleset is half a year in AsiaFortress way back in 2014 and the last three RGB LANs.

Halftime is useful but our game is slow enough as is. Teams who can improve on-the-fly have an advantage, as they should. Allow a tactical pause for each match with a limit of like five minutes as a pseudo-halftime. LANs already use the EU ruleset (with minor tweaks sometimes). Organizing matches, casts, events, etc. are easier when the longest a game could go is 30 minutes.

We need to experiment with 20 minute halves. That's the only compromise I can think of between the two rulesets. Run some invitational just to test the waters. But ultimately with how "fractured" NA and EU are I don't think it matters in the long run...old habits are fucking hard to change.

(Not commenting on the point system that's in place in RGL because that shit is wack and has already been brought up countless times.)
10
#10
9 Frags +

It's a minor thing but when viaduct is played (or any map that is not symmetric or where the symmetry is not central), the American style where you switch teams gives the chance to play on both parts of the maps. In EU games, you can spend the whole week scrimming in RED and end up playing the official in BLUE.

I haven't played on the NA ruleset but I believe it is possible to utilize the mid game break to discuss why x or y isn't working and hence stopping a likely 5-0 roll.

It's a minor thing but when viaduct is played (or any map that is not symmetric or where the symmetry is not central), the American style where you switch teams gives the chance to play on both parts of the maps. In EU games, you can spend the whole week scrimming in RED and end up playing the official in BLUE.

I haven't played on the NA ruleset but I believe it is possible to utilize the mid game break to discuss why x or y isn't working and hence stopping a likely 5-0 roll.
11
#11
1 Frags +

i was thinking about how a lotta froyo vs ascent or even some lower teams, froyo was often being beaten and then they have a huge comback and win. (like when cw is playing is what i mean)

thats probably because of the way they structure the games, but it shows how this rule set can have a major sway in how its played and i think i like the idea of there being a goal to reach. a lot of the games im playing now are slow as balls and are really decided at whoever has 3 rounds and then its just passive time wasting shit thats how a lotta EU players think and its not good for the game and i dont think it always says who really shouldve won

i was thinking about how a lotta froyo vs ascent or even some lower teams, froyo was often being beaten and then they have a huge comback and win. (like when cw is playing is what i mean)

thats probably because of the way they structure the games, but it shows how this rule set can have a major sway in how its played and i think i like the idea of there being a goal to reach. a lot of the games im playing now are slow as balls and are really decided at whoever has 3 rounds and then its just passive time wasting shit thats how a lotta EU players think and its not good for the game and i dont think it always says who really shouldve won
12
#12
2 Frags +

I like the matches taking around 30 minutes per map like in ETF2L, but I also like the way how ESEA scored points to make the amount of rounds scored matter at least slightly. Of course winning the actual match is the most important thing, but keeping count on the rounds won and lost is the easiest way how to deal with tiebreakers instead of the way how ETF2L has a secondary solution to it with the Sonneborn-Berger tiebreaker score for the lower tiers. Thankfully the primary solution for that is simple and fair which is just the head-to-head result, assuming that there's any because sometimes the playoff teams don't even play against each other in Swiss system.

Reeroimo the american system usually leads to really late night matches so sometimes that has been annoying in my experience but otherwise i think its fine

To be fair while you all just have a pretty fucked up timing altogether with the timezone variance, making any match start after 10:30 PM ET is another problem here that doesn't help. Even in Europe I live on the eastern timezone (EET/EEST) and very few times I've had to play a BO3 that has still been undecided at around 1 AM in my own time.

I like the matches taking around 30 minutes per map like in ETF2L, but I also like the way how ESEA scored points to make the amount of rounds scored matter at least slightly. Of course winning the actual match is the most important thing, but keeping count on the rounds won and lost is the easiest way how to deal with tiebreakers instead of the way how ETF2L has a secondary solution to it with the Sonneborn-Berger tiebreaker score for the lower tiers. Thankfully the primary solution for that is simple and fair which is just the head-to-head result, assuming that there's any because sometimes the playoff teams don't even play against each other in Swiss system.

[quote=Reero]imo the american system usually leads to really late night matches so sometimes that has been annoying in my experience but otherwise i think its fine[/quote]
To be fair while you all just have a pretty fucked up timing altogether with the timezone variance, making any match start after 10:30 PM ET is another problem here that doesn't help. Even in Europe I live on the eastern timezone (EET/EEST) and very few times I've had to play a BO3 that has still been undecided at around 1 AM in my own time.
13
#13
1 Frags +
BloodisTo be fair while you all just have a pretty fucked up timing altogether with the timezone variance, making any match start after 10:30 PM ET is another problem here that doesn't help. Even in Europe I live on the eastern timezone (EET/EEST) and very few times I've had to play a BO3 that has still been undecided at around 1 AM in my own time.

definitely agree about timing being kinda yikes. my timezone is AST (Atlantic standard time/ EST + 1 hr) matches start at 11:30pm IF they start on time + if it's close it can go to 12:30 or longer. With bo3s it's even worse. During playoffs a couple seasons ago I played a close bo3 that went until 3am. Partly I just live in a poverty time zone, but it's definitely hard to find match times that work for everyone across canada + the states (west coast players play at 6pm or so)

I do like the benefit of the pause at half time to talk about strats/what works and doesn't work but I hate that it takes so long for teams to do/ready up after. maybe having a time limit on the break would help. Shorter halves like tery mentioned might also work. Or even having two 5min pauses in a 30/40 min game or something. Put a longer time when a round ends so you have time to pause without messing up the rollout.

[quote=Bloodis]To be fair while you all just have a pretty fucked up timing altogether with the timezone variance, making any match start after 10:30 PM ET is another problem here that doesn't help. Even in Europe I live on the eastern timezone (EET/EEST) and very few times I've had to play a BO3 that has still been undecided at around 1 AM in my own time.[/quote]

definitely agree about timing being kinda yikes. my timezone is AST (Atlantic standard time/ EST + 1 hr) matches start at 11:30pm IF they start on time + if it's close it can go to 12:30 or longer. With bo3s it's even worse. During playoffs a couple seasons ago I played a close bo3 that went until 3am. Partly I just live in a poverty time zone, but it's definitely hard to find match times that work for everyone across canada + the states (west coast players play at 6pm or so)

I do like the benefit of the pause at half time to talk about strats/what works and doesn't work but I hate that it takes so long for teams to do/ready up after. maybe having a time limit on the break would help. Shorter halves like tery mentioned might also work. Or even having two 5min pauses in a 30/40 min game or something. Put a longer time when a round ends so you have time to pause without messing up the rollout.
Please sign in through STEAM to post a comment.