Bringing back the "Tiebreaker List"

Last Sunday I was surprised to find that, when a map came down to a tiebreaker, we played HC vs. HC to settle it. Now I know this is one old tradition that FC used way before I showed up, but it became the subject of numerous debates before the conclusion of the Halo 4 generation. That was until silversleek01 came into one of these debates and said, "So put everyone on a ban list that says they can't play a tiebreaker if they played one earlier in the war," and World Peace was achieved.

Seriously, why are not still using this technique? The rule was that any team composition can be gathered to play a tiebreaker, as long as all members on that team did not appear on "The List," which itself was a running tally of all the people who fought in previous tiebreakers during that war. The only exception was if the list was full or nearly full, and the only people online at the time were people from the list.

The list is not difficult to maintain. Previously it was a sheet in the Statbook that was just a list of gamertags of the combatants, colored by army, with a date next to them listing their last tiebreaker match. In my opinion, the Tiebreaker List dramatically changed the way we viewed close battles, and Field Marshals had to make serious considerations about who they called upon each week to fight in a tiebreaker. Sure, a "stacked" team could win tonight, but is the map important enough to make that call? It also resulted in dramatically varied team compositions, where members from different Squads would play together sometimes for the first time ever.

I see no reason not to revive the Tiebreaker List. At the time it was truly seen as one of the greatest suggestions to come out of the wars and a dramatic improvement to our Battle Night procedure.

Why was this ever stopped?

I strongly support going back to the tie breaker list.

Interesting idea though it assumes each side has equal numbers which may not always be the case. Consistency is also a factor. For example if the only people you currently have are people already on the list, how would that be handled? Make that a rule like no interpretation otherwise people could complain of stacking even though it's just everyone is on the list anyway.

It's important to note if this becomes a thing

<3 Nervy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NervyDestroyer

Interesting idea though it assumes each side has equal numbers which may not always be the case. Consistency is also a factor. For example if the only people you currently have are people already on the list, how would that be handled? Make that a rule like no interpretation otherwise people could complain of stacking even though it's just everyone is on the list anyway.

It's important to note if this becomes a thing

<3 Nervy

---

Quote:

---

The only exception was if the list was full or nearly full, and the only people online at the time were people from the list.

---

The list was a good rule inclusion when it was implemented. While it added a little bit of work to manage, it did solve quite a few issues such as accusations towards either HC of stacking their upper echelon, accusations of lesser skilled HC and officers going offline, and it helped add a variety and unknown element to tiebreakers as previously with HC v HC it was generally predictable who would win.

However it is important to mention that the tiebreaker list isn't perfect, and there were issues in the past where certain lesser skilled individuals would go offline so that higher skilled individuals who were on the list can play again (this issue only occurred when the list was close to cycling the whole army)

Despite that one drawback, I support the list and believe it had a positive influence on battle nights and it allowed the whole army to feel involved when previously it was a privilege held only to the higher ranked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NervyDestroyer

Interesting idea though it assumes each side has equal numbers which may not always be the case. Consistency is also a factor. For example if the only people you currently have are people already on the list, how would that be handled? Make that a rule like no interpretation otherwise people could complain of stacking even though it's just everyone is on the list anyway.

It's important to note if this becomes a thing

<3 Nervy

---

could do like a number thing, where whoever has done it least, assuming numbers are low and there are a lot of tiebreakers, whoever has participated in the least number of tiebreakers must participate before ones that have more can participate again

My only concern right now is BLUE, because with a smaller active pool they'd be able to cycle members faster. However, I'm reasonably sure we won't be tying every BN and that this won't become a fast problem.

well, you know my thoughts on the list.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Houdini

Why was this ever stopped?

I strongly support going back to the tie breaker list.

---

Tiebreakers are nice

I remember when I played a tiebreaker due to the list, it was fun.~ I strongly suggest the list!!~

The idea of the list is good as long as the numbers on both sides are relatively even. With the number of current players in blue, tie breakers are still going to cause the same problems the list is trying to avoid.