Game Limit Rule Change

**Houdini** · 08-17-2015, 10:14 PM

I've been on both sides of the numbers imbalance, and I strongly support the principle that the army that fields more people on battle nights should have an advantage for that battle night. It makes sense with respect to the lore (more troops = higher chance of winning), and it helps skill imbalance. The way we currently enforce this principle is the 3 game per player per map rule. This rule is severely broken.

Problems with the Current System
1. If an army wants to maximize the utility of their players, a good tactic is to go into battles as 4v3 when they know they will win anyway. Why waste a player in a match that will be easy?

2. Army's have an incentive to delay matches throughout the night so that players who can only get on later in the battle night will be able to play instead of ending the night early.

3. Army's can pull squads out of their hats at the last minute on battle night to try and meet the minimum player requirement. This lengthens battle nights significantly with no real advantage.

4. Players sit idle towards the end of the night waiting for the last handful of matches to be played. We have members online, but instead of using them to keep battles going we force them to sit on the sidelines.

5. Players must wait in lobbies for extended periods of time without playing to collect forfeits. People get on to battle night and instead of playing for their army, they are waiting for their army (not nearly as much fun)

There are probably other broken incentives with the rule, but these are five that bother me.

Solution
First, we should remove the 3 game per player per map rule. Players can play as many games as are needed on the map. This will resolve the issue where armies are smart about only playing 3 players in a match that they know they can win and will prevent players from sitting idle once they have their 3 matches done. If a squad wants to play a 3v4 just to play the match or for any other reason, they can still do this, but there will not be anything to be gained by saving a player.

Second, the forfeits should be awarded during each rotation. At any time during the battle night, if an army has two extra squads for a rotation, those two squads are placed against each other. This match is treated like any other match (the defending squad selects the game type, the full game is played, etc.) The only difference is that both of the squads are from the same army so the 'winner' column will clearly be that army. This match is the 'forfeit,' but it is still played so people don't have to sit idle on battle nights.

Consequences:
Changing this system changes the structure of the rules slightly, but maintains the original purpose of rewarding the army with more people.

If an army only has one team more than the other army they aren't awarded any advantage. This is fair; one squad is not a numbers advantage.
Players cannot jump on at the end of battle nights and expect to collect forfeits for the entire night (or the entire map). Forfeits are awarded continuously throughout the night and reflect the current number of teams online for each army. It is very possible that one army may collect a free win on the first map, but the second army may collect a free win on the second map if the numbers shift throughout the night (which they almost always do).
Forfeit wins also impact the game type requirements. Since a game type was selected for the match to be played, that game type will impact the game type requirements.
Players do not have to sit in lobbies for extended periods of time. At any time during the night, there should be a maximum of one team not playing (or queued into their next match). Wins are not awarded for sitting in lobbies; wins are awarded for playing halo.
The game count is no longer significant. We can adjust the game count based on how many games we want squads to play without worrying about numbers imbalance. Everybody will always be playing.
The stat book may look weird during this forfeit matches. This is fine. The stat book should be a tool, not a limitation.

**silversleek(GEN)** · 08-17-2015, 11:01 PM

The 3 games per player limit was originally created to prevent "god squads" from playing extra games per map, because there was some issues with the line-up every now and then where some better squads would play 4-5 games per map, and the lower skill squads would only make an appearance for ~2 games and then "get off" only to reappear later for the next map, allowing better teams to play a bit more. Wasn't as bad because we had more squads back then, but now that issue would be extra painful.

Originally Posted by Houdini

Second, the forfeits should be awarded during each rotation. At any time during the battle night, if an army has two extra squads for a rotation, those two squads are placed against each other. This match is treated like any other match (the defending squad selects the game type, the full game is played, etc.) The only difference is that both of the squads are from the same army so the 'winner' column will clearly be that army. This match is the 'forfeit,' but it is still played so people don't have to sit idle on battle nights.

I really like this idea. It encourages both sides to be at the top of their recruitment game, and to keep their squads active and practicing. It also solves the above problem, as their will always be a variety of people to play. It will also cut down wait times (unless there's only 1 squad free.) 10/10 would get behind.

**Houdini** · 08-17-2015, 11:15 PM

Originally Posted by silversleek

The 3 games per player limit was originally created to prevent "god squads" from playing extra games per map, because there was some issues with the line-up every now and then where some better squads would play 4-5 games per map, and the lower skill squads would only make an appearance for ~2 games and then "get off" only to reappear later for the next map, allowing better teams to play a bit more. Wasn't as bad because we had more squads back then, but now that issue would be extra painful.

This would resolve the god squad issue just as easily. If an army wants to stack and only field one team they can do that. They would just be penalized for each squad on the opposing team that is only and ready to play.

**silversleek(GEN)** · 08-17-2015, 11:42 PM

Originally Posted by Houdini

This would resolve the god squad issue just as easily. If an army wants to stack and only field one team they can do that. They would just be penalized for each squad on the opposing team that is only and ready to play.

yep, just giving history.