Tie Breaker Games

[Blackhawk570]

I remember before that tie breaker games consisted of either all squad leaders or the best players of that night from each squad squared off. I know now we just pick the best squads, but I was wondering if anyone likes this idea and thinks we should revert to this idea rather than having the best squads duke it out everytime

[Mythonian]

Quite often we have three or so other games already going on, so getting those players together into a lobby would take some time and would delay the battles.

However, if an army wants to set up a mix of officers or something, then they are free to do so, as long as it doesn't delay the battles...

Also, due to RoE Amendment I, using the "best squads" will be harder and less common. If a squad has already played their games, then the army is forced to use another squad instead.

[bazongaman502]

i say HC and people of their choice should play that tiebreaker... that way the guys in HC can still play rather then just setting up the games :/

[VerbotenDonkey]

i say HC and people of their choice should play that tiebreaker... that way the guys in HC can still play rather then just setting up the games :/

Well there's a rule against Field Marshals playing in a game more than once a War I believe.

But promoting Officer only games might endorse an Army to stack Officers who aren't capable of the job, but just good at Halo to try to win a game. That's why I think it should just be the best Squad vs. best Squad. Then, since it's a tiebreaker, the Field Marshals can move on and set up games for the next Map while that game is being played out.

Best players would work like in the past, but only if it was the last map being played. Or if there weren't a lot of Squads so it wouldnt even be an issue. I like the idea of best players games for tie-breaker, but it wouldn't be practical.

[Nocte]

The only thing that I will agree to is that tie-breakers will be played by equal skilled squads. I won't be having the most skilled against the least. If that does happen, hell will be raised by me.

[Fuzzy]

I believe that we should just continue are regular rotation so that every squad can get a fair chance at a equal amount of games, lets say a tiebreaker is going on and one squad had one less game played than the other squads I would place them in so that those players have a equal opportunity.

Trying to set up for these other ways tend to mean that there will be a large wait time, waiting for players and games to finish so that we can setup one more game throws off the consistency of the night and causes issues that do not need to be caused.

[Blackhawk570]

Maybe the community isn't as big as back then but there wasn't ever a problem with waiting to gather people for tiebreaker games. They just got different people if someone was already in a match

[silversleek(GEN)]

@donkey, it's once a month.

[iFurrious]

I think we should just do what we did last war and have our best squads play the tiebreaker. If you just keep doing the rotation of squads, it will be really easy to just move a squad around to get an advantage. It will cause just too much drama.

[Mythonian]

As long as it does not violate the RoE or delay the battles, it's up to the Field Marshals on which squads they put into the tiebreaker.

We will not force them to put in their most skilled squads, or force them not to do so, by making an official rule.

Last war, the FMs agreed to do that, and it was their decision. If they do it again, it is entirely their decision.