2 vs. 2, duelling++.

[acks45]

There could be a fifth player that serves as a moderator to make sure that teams aren't lying about their win.

eexcept killing him would mean an extra point for the team that DID kill kim


someone could make a .lua script that made white team moderator or something and that he doesnt take dammage but runs around watching the game( not that you could cheat really except by killing him)


i'll lock into it

[Iritscen]

This all sounds very reminiscent of the time I proposed rules for a ladder tournament It always comes down to the same problems that need to be solved. In my rules I had suggested an "observer-host" who both hosted, to eliminate the hosting advantage (which allows us to do best-of-whatever and not worry about which team hosted more), and who recorded the match as a film in case of dispute.

When it came down to how he would have to avoid influencing the match, one of my suggestions was indeed a script that killed him when he entered the match. W'rk's Elimination script could probably be modified to do this, so that the host can switch to different players and watch them, instead of having to lie in a puddle the whole time.

Next you'll have to figure out what maps will be played. Because you know there are going to be arguments over that if it's left up to each host. Many of us perform much better in some maps than others and are bound to be unhappy if the host only picks maps we're bad at.

[treellama]

In my rules I had suggested an "observer-host" who both hosted, to eliminate the hosting advantage (which allows us to do best-of-whatever and not worry about which team hosted more), and who recorded the match as a film in case of dispute.

This whole ladder tournament is a really stupid idea to start with, but that's no reason to shut off your brain. You eliminate the so-called "hosting advantage" by having each player host the same number of games, alternating, not by picking an "observer-host" who is still going to give one team an advantage. You don't need hacky Lua. And everyone in the game should save a film and send it to the tournament organizer, if they match up, record the scores.

Geez.

[effigy]

I've been considering a feature request for A1 that might help here (if it became a feature): That is to have Aleph One send end results of games to the lobby and displayed as information similar to the current games window.

edit: I guess that's really only step 1, though. Results would still have to be collected and such.

[treellama]

I've been considering a feature request for A1 that might help here (if it became a feature): That is to have Aleph One send end results of games to the lobby and displayed as information similar to the current games window.

That would be a metaserver feature request then. Until it can handle Aleph One reporting game results, there's no point sending them.

[acks45]

and that wont happen. as you xplained umm... in a thread pretty recently actually.... ummm... thugs minor feature thread?

[Iritscen]

This whole ladder tournament is a really stupid idea to start with

For someone who is anti-competition such as yourself, I would expect that response, Mr. No-Ranking-System. And don't put the blame on Mnet, if they refuse to host our game scores then we can send them to another server of our own. The ball's always been in the court of the A1 dev(s?). Anyway...

You eliminate the so-called "hosting advantage" by having each player host the same number of games, alternating, not by picking an "observer-host" who is still going to give one team an advantage.

I was trying to figure out how, in a match of 2x2, each player would host an equal number of times but have the winner chosen best-of-x-style without one team having hosted more than another (edit: I was also trying to avoid the dilemma of one team not having someone who could host).

I guess that we could do it with "rounds" of hosting, wherein each team hosts one game per round. In a round, if both teams win (or lose!) their hosted match, the round is a draw. The first team that wins 3 rounds by winning each round's hosted and joined match is the winner of that rung. How does that sound?

[treellama]

I was trying to figure out how, in a match of 2x2, each player would host an equal number of times but have the winner chosen best-of-x-style without one team having hosted more than another

A difficult math problem, to be sure, but it turns out if you solve for x it works when x is any multiple of four.

The ball's always been in the court of the A1 dev(s?).

Well, it's pretty easy to make silly assertions, watch: the ball's in your court, because you suggested it last.

[Iritscen]

A difficult math problem, to be sure, but it turns out if you solve for x it works when x is any multiple of four.

Perhaps you're using the term "best of x" differently than I meant it. To me, "best of 4" would mean that the match ends as soon as one side has won 3 games, and that setup allows a possible outcome of the winning team having hosted 2 of its 3 successful games with the losing team having only hosted 1 game. That's why I proposed rounds of alternate hosting being used as the basis for scoring, so the losing team will have been given as many hosted games as the winners.

If you meant by "best of x" that there would be a forced minimum of x games in the match (where x is a multiple of 4), then you were saying much the same thing that I did with my hosting-rounds-until-three-rounds-are-won suggestion except with a draw being possible.

Well, it's pretty easy to make silly assertions, watch: the ball's in your court, because you suggested it last.

If I had write access to the source repository and any free time at all, I'd do it myself.

[treellama]

Perhaps you're using the term "best of x" differently than I meant it.

Best of x means, simply, you play x games, and whoever wins more, is the winner. How is this difficult to understand?

If I had write access to the source repository and any free time at all, I'd do it myself.

No, you wouldn't. Without modifying Mariusnet, or writing a metaserver of our own, it is not possible to do this--at least, if you want to verify the identities of players.

So, I once again advise you against making assertions you can't back up.

[Iritscen]

Best of x means, simply, you play x games, and whoever wins more, is the winner. How is this difficult to understand?

It's difficult to understand because that's not how the rest of the world defines "best of x". Normally "best of x" means that no more games are played after one team wins more than half of x games. I take it you don't watch much sports.

No, you wouldn't. Without modifying Mariusnet, or writing a metaserver of our own

Now you're catching on.

[treellama]

It's difficult to understand because that's not how the rest of the world defines "best of x". Normally "best of x" means that no more games are played after one team wins more than half of x games. I take it you don't watch much sports.

Whether games that don't affect the outcome are played or not doesn't factor into the meaning of "best of x"--which simply means greater than x/2 games won. Additionally, it doesn't affect this discussion since playing them or not doesn't affect the outcome or fairness of the tournament. So, I'm not sure why you brought it up other than to argue over the meaning of a phrase where it doesn't matter anyway.

Now you're catching on.

Do you hold us responsible for the lack of high res monsters, too?

Indeed, the Aleph One developers are responsible for Aleph One, nothing more. The ball is in whoever's court who wants to do it. In this case, it makes the most sense for the guys who already have a metaserver to add it, rather than writing one from scratch. But, if someone wants to do that (if you want to do it!) more power to them.

To imply that somehow this is a failing on our part, though, is pretty unreasonable, which is what I took issue with.

[Iritscen]

Whether games that don't affect the outcome are played or not doesn't factor into the meaning of "best of x"--which simply means greater than x/2 games won. Additionally, it doesn't affect this discussion since playing them or not doesn't affect the outcome or fairness of the tournament.

Again, unplayed matches do matter. If Team A gets to host the first game, wins it, wins Team B's first hosted game, then wins their own second hosted game, who is to say that the losing Team B wouldn't have won their next hosted game and kept things even? Judging the score in pairs of alternately-hosted games avoids this problem, however.

To imply that somehow this is a failing on our part, though, is pretty unreasonable, which is what I took issue with.

I never implied it was a failure; I simply implied that if you wanted it, it could happen. You should at least admit that you don't want a ranking system. The problem here is that there's no group input on the issue of adding A1 rankings to Mnet; you're probably the only person who can ask them for it, and since you don't want it, and you don't care to poll the community on whether they want it, and Mnet naturally wouldn't approach us about it of their own initiative, it doesn't happen from either side. Of course, you're in the influential position that you are because you've stuck with A1 all this time, so I don't want to sound like I'm criticizing you for being dedicated to the project; that would be rather unthankful and rude of me. I just wish you would accept community input. Frankly I don't think either of us knows what the community at large wants with regard to this issue. Would you object to polling the community to see what they think? A couple of pros and cons could be presented with the question, for them to consider.

Anyway, even if we were to ask the community, and it was to answer "Yes, we want rankings", that would certainly not obligate you to do the actual coding. After all, someone else could then volunteer to develop the ranking support in A1, then after that they could speak to Mnet as an established dev of A1 and see if they respond. If not, then that new A1 dev would have to set up their own meta or find someone else who will.

[acks45]

I think what your missing out on iretscen is that purple people eater doesn't particularily care about us marathoners and will do little to help us.

[Wrkncacnter]

Good god Iritscen, what are you talking about. Hopefully you are just trolling, because saying "you haven't coded feature x means you must not like feature x" is one of the stupidest things I've read on here in quite some time. Please point out to me to where Treellama has stopped someone from coding a metaserver with ranked games for alephone. Polling the community for what they want is a waste of time. If someone codes it, it will get added to A1. Simple as that.

So far no one has coded it up, and that includes you. So the real question is, why do YOU hate rankings so much?

[$lave]

So far no one has coded it up, and that includes you. So the real question is, DID ANYONE EVER IMPROVE AFTER ANYTHING YOU'VE DONE IN YOUR LIFE?

[treellama]

Again, unplayed matches do matter. If Team A gets to host the first game, wins it, wins Team B's first hosted game, then wins their own second hosted game, who is to say that the losing Team B wouldn't have won their next hosted game and kept things even?

In that case, the score would have been three to one. That you think 3-1 is an even score explains your posts and confusion on this "best of x" point, i guess.

I never implied it was a failure; I simply implied that if you wanted it, it could happen. You should at least admit that you don't want a ranking system. The problem here is that there's no group input on the issue of adding A1 rankings to Mnet; you're probably the only person who can ask them for it, and since you don't want it, and you don't care to poll the community on whether they want it, and Mnet naturally wouldn't approach us about it of their own initiative, it doesn't happen from either side. Of course, you're in the influential position that you are because you've stuck with A1 all this time, so I don't want to sound like I'm criticizing you for being dedicated to the project; that would be rather unthankful and rude of me. I just wish you would accept community input. Frankly I don't think either of us knows what the community at large wants with regard to this issue. Would you object to polling the community to see what they think? A couple of pros and cons could be presented with the question, for them to consider.

Anyway, even if we were to ask the community, and it was to answer "Yes, we want rankings", that would certainly not obligate you to do the actual coding. After all, someone else could then volunteer to develop the ranking support in A1, then after that they could speak to Mnet as an established dev of A1 and see if they respond. If not, then that new A1 dev would have to set up their own meta or find someone else who will.

Well, I can only enumerate the ways you don't know what you're talking about:You don't know whether I do or do not want a ranking systemYou don't seem to realize that wanting something does not automatically make it happenYou don't know how many times I have asked for ranking support in MariusnetYou don't appear to be aware of how much work is required to create a new metaserver, or how much time and money is required to host oneYou don't even know for a fact that nobody is working on a new metaserver, or support for rankings in the engine.But somehow this doesn't stop you from contradicting an informed post of mine, and then ranting about "accepting community input" when the only thing that's being rejected here is your own uninformed mouthing off.

[interion]

You don't know whether I do or do not want a ranking system

QUOTE(Treellama)There's also the fear that ranked games / stats would encourage even more spawn killing / suicides / otherwise not fun behavior. Having games be fun for everyone involved is more important than a leader board, IMO.[/quote]

[Iritscen]

In that case, the score would have been three to one. That you think 3-1 is an even score explains your posts and confusion on this "best of x" point, i guess.

Okay, you got me. I rushed through my post so I could make an appointment tonight. I think what I was trying to say was that if the teams are playing for best of x, and both teams continue to win their respective hosted games, the team that hosted first will be guaranteed to win when they reach best of x games before the team that hosted second. Which is why I prefer my round-of-alternated-hosting approach. But anyway, I think we both get each other's point here, let's let dead horses lie.

Well, I can only enumerate the ways you don't know what you're talking about:You don't know whether I do or do not want a ranking system

Try to give me a tiny bit of credit in remembering what people say. Tim gave a sample quote of yours, and I've probably seen another somewhere. Based on those couple of data points, I felt I could make a conclusion. If I'm wrong, then tell me, and I will be happily wrong.

You don't seem to realize that wanting something does not automatically make it happen

Let's not play the straw-man game, I've been around here long enough to know the CLIQUE's favorite rhetorical device when I see it.

You don't know how many times I have asked for ranking support in Mariusnet

I'm gonna guess, Zero. Am I wrong? Tell me, please; it would be helpful to know if PrplPplEater is refusing to add us.

You don't appear to be aware of how much work is required to create a new metaserver, or how much time and money is required to host one.

Mariusnet's software is freely available, isn't it? And I think we can find someone who can pay for a dedicated server to run it. Let's not naysay something that hasn't even been asked of the community yet.

You don't even know for a fact that nobody is working on a new metaserver, or support for rankings in the engine.

I assume that there isn't, though, because if there was you would have said so by now just to shut me up.

But somehow this doesn't stop you from contradicting an informed post of mine, and then ranting about "accepting community input" when the only thing that's being rejected here is your own uninformed mouthing off.

Wow, so that's what "mouthing off" means?
Mouthing off. v. 1. To suggest that we look into a feature that many communities enjoy having and see if it's wanted in ours.

[treellama]

Okay, you got me. I rushed through my post so I could make an appointment tonight. I think what I was trying to say was that if the teams are playing for best of x, and both teams continue to win their respective hosted games, the team that hosted first will be guaranteed to win when they reach best of x games before the team that hosted second. Which is why I prefer my round-of-alternated-hosting approach. But anyway, I think we both get each other's point here, let's let dead horses lie.

I don't think you do get the point. In a best out of 8 game, if that happened, the score would be 4-4. There's no guaranteed win.

Try to give me a tiny bit of credit in remembering what people say.

Considering I've never said I didn't want rankings, you deserve no credit.

If I'm wrong, then tell me, and I will be happily wrong.

You're wrong.

I'm gonna guess, Zero. Am I wrong? Tell me, please; it would be helpful to know if PrplPplEater is refusing to add us.

You're wrong. And, nobody is refusing to add anything.

Mariusnet's software is freely available, isn't it? And I think we can find someone who can pay for a dedicated server to run it. Let's not naysay something that hasn't even been asked of the community yet.

Mariusnet is freely available as a binary, which doesn't help when you want it to do something it doesn't do now.

I've inquired about metaserver hosting before and nobody I spoke to was very enthused to host a Windows binary.

I assume that there isn't, though, because if there was you would have said so by now just to shut me up.

You're wrong here, too.

And, as for the laughable suggestion that your bizarrely accusatory posts merely suggest being more receptive to community input, well, I think they speak for themselves.

[Iritscen]

I don't think you do get the point. In a best out of 8 game, if that happened, the score would be 4-4. There's no guaranteed win.

Well, that's according to how you were defining "best of x", not according to how it works in sports, as I explained earlier. Essentially your suggestion is the same as my "rounds" suggestion. So really we're in agreement. End of story.

Considering I've never said I didn't want rankings, you deserve no credit.
You're wrong.
You're wrong. And, nobody is refusing to add anything.
You're wrong here, too.

Well, good, I'm wrong then. I just don't know why these things have to be treated like state secrets. There's nothing wrong with saying "something is being worked on, but don't bug us because it's coming along slowly". If someone is genuinely working on this, currently, then I don't know why you didn't say so before now.

And, I'm sorry if you read 'bizarre accusations' into my posts. I think that one of us (or both of us) is not picking up the correct tone of the other's words.

[acks45]

Perhaps if the situation arises where your playing a best of four, and team hosting game one wins game one and two( the first hosted by the oposition) the losing team get's their second "home game" right away( i think you were alluding to this earlier, but you started trying to prove a)that shit smells good b)3-1=draw.....) so as to not diminish their chances of drawing the match with opposing host's lag. instead of alternating hosting, though realistically you would have to beat them on home turf anyways, you'd just be trying to lift morale of the losing team.

[Wrkncacnter]

If someone is genuinely working on this, currently, then I don't know why you didn't say so before now.

You didn't ask.

[treellama]

you'd just be trying to lift morale of the losing team.

Yes, I was simply talking about the outcome in terms of wins / losses. It doesn't matter what order you play them in. You don't have to alternate. You don't have to keep playing if a winner is determined. But, you can if you want to.

It doesn't matter because the outcome is going to be the same anyway.

Now, if you want to factor morale into it, it's a different story. Nobody mentioned that up until now--it could make the alternating games red herring actually meaningful, if you're trying to make people feel good. I doubt that's why people would be interested in the tournament.

[acks45]

its not a tournament. but i agree with you, it doesn't matter which order you play them in. plus if you defeat your opposing lead on their home turf in game three after losing game two, that will have a better effect on your morale in game four if you ask me.

TL's Opinion about ranked games.

oh wow, Zing!<- the video reminds me more of TL and Iretscen, but Tim ...well done sir.