Standardize Tiebreakers

[Jam Cliché]

Last war, due in part to its sheer length, we saw a lot of different practices for handling the unique situations that came up. Many of these, I believe, have been worked into the Rules of Engagement for this war. One thing I have not seen is a rule in place for tiebreakers. I do know that a tied match for a Primary Battle does not count as a win for either side or as a game played for either side, so if a team needs, say 14/27 wins for a 4v4 map, one or more tie games will mean that we actually have to extend the number of games played. Beyond that, I do not know how else we handle tie situations, both for games and for maps.

What we did last war many times was utilize the HC battle, a tradition in FC that I would like to have put into the rules. However, we must have some stipulations to ensure that what really occurs is, in fact, a High Command Battle. There were some implications made by both sides of teams being skewed or stacked for HC Battles, and I am sure this has gone on before I got here, too. In order to eliminate the possibility of manipulation and keep both sides argumentatively innocent of said deeds, then consider the following:


- Should either army's victory on a map be hindered by one or more tied matches preventing the required wins/matches requirement, the tied matches should be first considered to be replayed, starting with the latest tied match first, to satisfy the necessary matches and wins for the map.

- Should victory on a map be closing in on a tiebreaker for the final game played according to the number of wins/matches required to satisfy the victory, and no tie matches are present in the scores thus far, a High Command Battle may be played to settle the score.

- A High Command Battle consists of the top ranking members of each army, starting with the Field Marshal, forming teams to face off in a match, with gametype choice being given to the army as per standard. If the team size exceeds the number of members in High Command, then the team is expanded to Flag Officers or Officers until the list is occupied.

- A High Command Battle must include above 50% of the total members of each army's High Command. If either army cannot fulfill this requirement, the HC Battle is considered forfeit by that army. If neither army can fulfill this requirement, the final match is to be played according the rotation instead, and both armies will gain no income or spoils of war from any planets involved in that week's Attack Plans, as a punishment for army leaders not fulfilling their duties on Battle Night

Sunday Nights are the most important night in FC. The community is built around the battles. Even if we work all week for FC's success, the five top ranking members of each army should especially make Sunday their priority over anything else. A HC battle would not only be a way for both FMs to play more often, but also standardize the way we settle a close score on a Battle Night AND keep the HC members in check and avoid "absentee" leadership.

In the case of the 5-man HC that we have now, Over 50% means 3/5 HC members from both armies must participate.

[VerbotenDonkey]

I still say TieBreaks should be best vs best.

[HighLight]

I still say TieBreaks should be best vs best.

This.

Let the Field Marshall's choose the individual players.

[Yehsus]

I still say TieBreaks should be best vs best.

We should do my mom vrs your mom.

[Blackhawk570]

We should do my mom vrs your mom.

[UNLUCKY NUM13ER]

It depends. There's pros & cons for every option. The HC vs HC seems to be the oldest method. However when I was FM I preferred picking individual players.

Honestly we should just leave it up to the FMs for each war to work out a plan for themselves. I don't think this is an issue that needs to have a set rule for.

[Blackhawk570]

I wouldn't mind best vs best, but as long as FMs can be chosen for this :D

[OPOC1L1PSE]

I vote best vs. best. That whole idea of HC battle is just stupid IMO.

[silversleek]

i have an interesting twist not looked at yet, for tie breakers, it can be field marshalls pick of people, but those people can't be picked for any more tie breakers that war. This will let each tiebreaker have different people, while still encouraging balance, as if you "spend" all of your best players immediately, you won't have them available, putting you at a disadvantage. If no people are available due to low attendance, or an excess of tiebreakers that war, it goes to high com battle. if high com is also not available, forfeit.

[Anarchy]

HC vs HC would be best.

Or simply next in rotation, with stipulations.

[Spartanbh]

I'm not a fan of the BEST VS BEST shit because it could possibly gives the army who has the better purely skilled players a total advantage. What I think would be cool is choosing the top player from each game of the night (obviously since there are more than 8 games played during fight for a map, it'd be tough). Then you could work in a rotation aspect or something.

Or maybe go by "best" players from each category...such as best sniper of the night, best slayer, best objective player, etc.

[Fuzzy]

I'm not a fan of the BEST VS BEST shit because it could possibly gives the army who has the better purely skilled players a total advantage. What I think would be cool is choosing the top player from each game of the night (obviously since there are more than 8 games played during fight for a map, it'd be tough). Then you could work in a rotation aspect or something.

Or maybe go by "best" players from each category...such as best sniper of the night, best slayer, best objective player, etc.

You would have to prep like an hour to do the tiebreaker XD

[Jam Cliché]

You would have to prep like an hour to do the tiebreaker XD

This. HC just seems to be how we've been settling most ties, especially in the last war, and I know that every in BLUE gets really pumped up when someone is streaming them. It would also be simpler than other methods because the teams are already known and no one has to think "should we get this person or this person in on it"

[Mythonian]

i have an interesting twist not looked at yet, for tie breakers, it can be field marshalls pick of people, but those people can't be picked for any more tie breakers that war. This will let each tiebreaker have different people, while still encouraging balance, as if you "spend" all of your best players immediately, you won't have them available, putting you at a disadvantage. If no people are available due to low attendance, or an excess of tiebreakers that war, it goes to high com battle. if high com is also not available, forfeit.

That's actually not a bad idea... Nice job thinking up a new possibility. This could be refined into something that could work very well.

[bazongaman502]

I still say TieBreaks should be best vs best.

[Relapsive]

Honestly we should just leave it up to the FMs for each war to work out a plan for themselves. I don't think this is an issue that needs to have a set rule for.

[Seerow]

I'm in favor for Silversleeks idea.

[Guzzie]

I still say TieBreaks should be best vs best.

[Jam Cliché]

I actually fucking love Silver's idea. If the war becomes very long and exhausting though, we could find ourselves in a bind. Perhaps instead of trying to standardize Tiebreakers, we could set some boundaries for different types of Tiebreakers?

Like, in some situations we let tied gets get replayed, but under certain restrictions, like change the gametype to ensure not another tie.
If that doesn't apply, we do Silver's idea, which is fucking epic.
If we cannot fulfill Silver's idea on a particular night, we go to HC battle, but 3/5 of the HC must still participate.

That pretty much covers every tiebreaker I have seen used. Replay, selected teams, and HC.

[silversleek]

I actually fucking love Silver's idea. If the war becomes very long and exhausting though, we could find ourselves in a bind. Perhaps instead of trying to standardize Tiebreakers, we could set some boundaries for different types of Tiebreakers?

Like, in some situations we let tied gets get replayed, but under certain restrictions, like change the gametype to ensure not another tie.
If that doesn't apply, we do Silver's idea, which is fucking epic.
If we cannot fulfill Silver's idea on a particular night, we go to HC battle, but 3/5 of the HC must still participate.

That pretty much covers every tiebreaker I have seen used. Replay, selected teams, and HC.

tiebreakers with the teams that tied and if one team can't make it, go to this idea? have the restriction for "can't play again in a tiebreaker this war" go only to the picks, of course, so that the tied teams can face eachother worry free. If picks are short, go to high com

[Jam Cliché]

tiebreakers with the teams that tied and if one team can't make it, go to this idea? have the restriction for "can't play again in a tiebreaker this war" go only to the picks, of course, so that the tied teams can face eachother worry free. If picks are short, go to high com

Oh for sure, I would not allow the rule for your idea inhibit the rule of replays. And I like prioritizing it in that order, too, cause it means later in the war the HC gets more involved, but early on, it's all about some visceral matchups.

[Deathhawk]

I'll just throw this out there.

When there was a tie before, it would automatically go to the defending team.
The idea was that unless your map was taken from you in a battle, you still held your ground. A tie is still a stalemate, not a victory or loss.

[Jam Cliché]

I'll just throw this out there.

When there was a tie before, it would automatically go to the defending team.
The idea was that unless your map was taken from you in a battle, you still held your ground. A tie is still a stalemate, not a victory or loss.

It works on paper, but the battles would be less fun when an army knows they are basically down by 1 victory by default. Having the defending team pick the gametype is already good enough as a defensive measure.

[Silko]

My opinion? Hc battle like have before or silver's idea. This whole best v best idea has always caused drama in past wars.

[Prof Blastoise]

CnB vs whatevre reds you have.

But in all seriousness I like both ways. The old way is something for HC to look forward too. I would have have HC have the major voice in this.

[UnfoldedFreedom]

My opinion? Hc battle like have before or silver's idea. This whole best v best idea has always caused drama in past wars.

yeah vanquish would just beat everyone.

- - - Updated - - -

i like silver idea but for the whole war is a little to much maybe one or two games that cant be in that are tiebreaker

[Jam Cliché]

Hey, everyone, thanks for your responses on High Command battles and tiebreakers.

Myth has forwarded Silversleek's idea to the War Council for voting. The idea of a recycling list of players for tiebreakers eliminates problems of stacking the HC or giving one army a guaranteed tiebreaker win with "best vs. best".

I'm sure the WC will come out with its decision or work out the results into the FC:Rec3 Rules of Engagement.