Tie Breakers

[Nicholas Sapien]

Since no one else from WC didn't want to post this up, I am.
Myth feel free to change any of my words.

Question 1
in the event of both sides winning, lets say Blue wins the 1st 5 and then the reds win the next 5.
who should play the last round on a 6 out of 11 wins?
You have 3 choices:

The Tie Breaker being played by HC
The Tie Breaker being played by the best squads both armies have to offer
The Tie Breaker being played by the people who were next on the list

The 1st 2 options often delay the nights even more by an extra 10-15 mins
The 3rd Option is flows has less of a delay time


Question 2
Also for situations like last night, in the event of a Tie game like Game 3 on strongside
should we:
3 choices
Let the same people face off again with the same gametype?-like last night
Have our best play each other
or have HC kill each other

[Jam Cliché]

Tie breakers should only occur when there was a tie game during play. That is why we have an odd number of games played. So I say all tiebreakers should be settled by the teams that tied.

[JonOU812]

would be awesome if hc could beat the hell out of each other, while the rest of us just laugh our asses off

[silversleek]

follow rotation for #1, and for a tie, let the two teams replay. if they can't muster the members, make it a highcom battle. Best vs best won't really work. Redd will try to play vbd for the insta-win potential, and blue's best changes frequently since we have a lot of even higher up squads.

[Deaf]

I don't like the rotation idea at all. I honestly don't trust certain people enough to say that they'll follow the rules of the rotation. I'm really surprised you guys feel that way, considering how much chest thumping I've seen about "Cyberphoenix," that stacked team. But I do think we're overlooking a very possible solution, worst vs worst.

[JIMI HENRIX]

The third game tie you are all speaking of came from us being down a guy and not being able to replace him, however being down we still pulled out a tie, so it was decided to request a rematch. The rematch was never intended to be a "tie breaker" it just ended up that way. We also had to replace a guy, due to the guy that lagged out not being able to be online anymore. It appeared that blue did the same. As for the game choice, I was told we could pick a new game type, so we talked it out before Blue got in the lobby and decided to change it.

Just trying to clarify why we requested the rematch since it seems to be commonly missunderstood as us just wanting a chance and winning instead of a tie.

[Anarchy]

The third game tie you are all speaking of came from us being down a guy and not being able to replace him, however being down we still pulled out a tie, so it was decided to request a rematch. The rematch was never intended to be a "tie breaker" it just ended up that way. We also had to replace a guy, due to the guy that lagged out not being able to be online anymore. It appeared that blue did the same. As for the game choice, I was told we could pick a new game type, so we talked it out before Blue got in the lobby and decided to change it.

Just trying to clarify why we requested the rematch since it seems to be commonly missunderstood as us just wanting a chance and winning instead of a tie.

The idea was sprung up before you guys actually tied. The fact you tied CD was fairly coincidental and convenient for us to test the theory.


Tie breakers should only occur when there was a tie game during play. That is why we have an odd number of games played.

The last game in that odd count, if the deciding game, is a tiebreaker. Even if it is within the normal amount of games.


HC battles don't have to delay battles. We can easily do that at the end of the night if the first map is a tie.



I don't like the rotation idea at all. I honestly don't trust certain people enough to say that they'll follow the rules of the rotation. I'm really surprised you guys feel that way, considering how much chest thumping I've seen about "Cyberphoenix," that stacked team. But I do think we're overlooking a very possible solution, worst vs worst.

*facepalm*
If I wanted to stack a team, you wouldn't only see the culmination of two squads. You'd see DeadpoolSkillz, Clearshot, Sicarioano, Firedude, X5Sniper, Poleo, GadgetSnipe, Hydroo, etc. on that team. No offense to Mythonian and some others that were on the team you mentioned, but whenever you ACTUALLY see us stack a team for a best v best tiebreaker with our best 4/6/8, you don't see half the names you saw in "cyberphoenix". For gods sakes, they BARELY won against a team that had already lost earlier in the night to a completely different squad. How in balls name is that a stacked team.

Myth can oversee a "next in the rotation" ordeal, especially with how we setup rotations now. If both sides would actually stay static, it'd be pretty damn easy.


But my personal vote is with having a HC battle at the end of the night, or re-playing a tie if applicable. Next in rotation just seems less epic.

[VerbotenDonkey]

follow rotation for #1, and for a tie, let the two teams replay. if they can't muster the members, make it a highcom battle. Best vs best won't really work. Redd will try to play vbd for the insta-win potential, and blue's best changes frequently since we have a lot of even higher up squads.

VbD has lost twice. Your argument is invalid. BLUE has Squads that go undefeated during Battle Nights as well. :P

I would still vote for best vs best, but that's just cause that's what I'm used to. I wouldn't mind HC vs HC either because I know HC spends a lot of time setting up games and this would let us get some play time in as well. :P

[Jam Cliché]

*facepalm*
If I wanted to stack a team, you wouldn't only see the culmination of two squads. You'd see DeadpoolSkillz, Clearshot, Sicarioano, Firedude, X5Sniper, Poleo, GadgetSnipe, Hydroo, etc. on that team. No offense to Mythonian and some others that were on the team you mentioned, but whenever you ACTUALLY see us stack a team for a best v best tiebreaker with our best 4/6/8, you don't see half the names you saw in "cyberphoenix". For gods sakes, they BARELY won against a team that had already lost earlier in the night to a completely different squad. How in balls name is that a stacked team.

Agreed. I know I wouldn't be in it, or Myth. We're okay but we're wildly inconsistent.

[KazuhLLL]

VbD has lost twice. Your argument is invalid. BLUE has Squads that go undefeated during Battle Nights as well.
LLEEEEGGGGAAAACCCYYYYYY


Agreed. I know I wouldn't be in it, or Myth. We're okay but we're wildly inconsistent.
Oooh! Oooh! Can I join that club?

OT: I think next in rotation is the most logical, but HC vs HC would be a nice way to give them some much-needed Battle Night fun.

[PhoenixPrime]

Next in rotation is the most logical, and easily the best method to hold accountable and would combat delays the most.


If you don't trust Blue for not holding the rotation down, then I suggest you take a look at our rotations this past Sunday. We followed them to the letter, having posted exceptions WAY before the battles started to Mythonian, and all those exceptions were based on our turnout, not one whatever REDD threw at us. Ask any Blue HC member about it, and they'll tell you the same thing.


Having HC battles do it would be a piss-poor solution when you consider how many HC members in each army are in different units, and they'd all have to be freed up for it to occur.



And on a side note, having the squads replay their tie game would be the most fair, as it wouldn't screw with rotations a bit.




The important thing here folks is to remember that tie breakers have to be done in the quickest way possible, or you all are going to be waiting in lobbies EVEN LONGER than you already are.

[JamiDJ]

VbD has lost twice. Your argument is invalid. BLUE has Squads that go undefeated during Battle Nights as well. :P

I would still vote for best vs best, but that's just cause that's what I'm used to. I wouldn't mind HC vs HC either because I know HC spends a lot of time setting up games and this would let us get some play time in as well. :P

[Nicholas Sapien]

2nd Question is settled
anymore votes that go into it will not matter

The 1st question will be up until friday or if one of the options has more votes then the other choices(probably like 10-13 votes)

[silversleek]

VbD has lost twice. Your argument is invalid. BLUE has Squads that go undefeated during Battle Nights as well. :P

I would still vote for best vs best, but that's just cause that's what I'm used to. I wouldn't mind HC vs HC either because I know HC spends a lot of time setting up games and this would let us get some play time in as well. :P

vbd lost like 4 times out of their FC career, compared to how many games played? exactly. argument valid. Blue has squads that go undefeated, but they change every other week. This week it was legacy, last week i believe it was sparta (though they might have had one or two losses, i'm not sure.), last war the flawless battle night title switched between blue phoenix, wolves of war, cyberdyne, and north star, hence, as i said, our "best" changes often enough so that best V best would be kind of silly. Highcom V highcom, both highcoms have good and bad players, as far as i've seen it's fairly even. The best option would of course having the squads that tied play.

[KillerGUNNY132]

LLEEEEGGGGAAAACCCYYYYYY

LLLLEEEEGGGGAAAACCYYYYYYY

Anyway, I think following the rotation is the most logical decision. As far as the second situation, I think you just have the same squads play the same gametype. Also, occasionally throw in a HC vs HC game. Give those guys a bit of a break.

[Platinum]

FUCKKKK, i forgot to choose two

[Guzzie]

The right thing to do would be to have the teams that tied, play the same game again. Best vs best would be the "epic" option and the one I voted for.

The only issue with having the teams that tied play again, is that another tie is likely to occur, especially on a flag game type.

I would say have the teams that tie, go at it again. If another tie happens, then move on to "best vs best".

[Blackhawk570]

it doesnt have to be the same gametype. So like Hill 30, Occupation, Extraction, etc.

[UnfoldedFreedom]

CorbiN The Boyz Vs blues best ! lets go!

[Guzzie]

It should be the same game type though. It makes no sense to change the game type that was tied. The same two team should replay the game that was tied.

As for best vs best, the host team (team defending) should be able to select game type.

[Mythonian]

It should be the same game type though. It makes no sense to change the game type that was tied. The same two team should replay the game that was tied.

If they played CTF, for instance, then having them play it again is risking yet another tie, which could lead to severe delays of the battles. Both CTF and Extraction are quite easy to tie if the teams are very close in skill, which is why sometimes it'd be preferable to have them switch to a gametype that is less likely to result in another tie.

[bl4yze]

Flip a "coin" between the two teams that originally tied and whoever wins chooses gametype?

[VerbotenDonkey]

Flip a "coin" between the two teams that originally tied and whoever wins chooses gametype?

The Team that originally had gametype choice would likely still get it because they're either defending, or had Ambush.

[Jam Cliché]

Given the fact that we have at least 3 people setting up games, we should have all the games set up for a map by the time the first game in a given rotation completes. So, in a normal case, we don't know what the "tie breaker" game would be in a normal situation (IE Game 15 in an 8v8 would be setup before the games before it completes), so so just follow rotation.

Therefore, if a map is tied by the end of a map, it would only be tied due to a tie game (or an odd number of tie games). So the only true "tiebreaker" situation is the event of a tie game, and the only suitable decision in such case is to have the tying teams play another match.

[Nicholas Sapien]

The Team that originally had gametype choice would likely still get it because they're either defending, or had Ambush.

They would play the same gametype

[Blackhawk570]

They would play the same gametype

We should really change the gametype cause it will decrease the likelihood of a tie

[Nicholas Sapien]

We should really change the gametype cause it will decrease the likelihood of a tie

THIS IS MY WORLD, I DO AS I PLEASE

yeah we will probably change the game type, but its the defenders choice, or it's the attacker's choice if they use ambush

[Nicholas Sapien]

Topic Closed
Thank you all for your Input