Forum

Quoted from grimbar

[…]

Loss is loss, whether it’s by 1 round or 10. You don’t go into an official without knowing when it’ll end, it’s either 30 minutes or windifference 5.

So yes it is fair since you know what you have to do in order to win – simples

Fair enough that’s your opinion, but I don’t agree ;)

Quoted from Permzilla

[…]

People knowing what the rules are doesn’t make it fair. Losing 4-5 4-5 over 2 maps you get 0 points. That’s unfair imo.

Not really, it is not unfair. Losing team didn’t do well enough and that’s why they are on the losing side, period. You want to win matches, not get as many rounds as you can. I’d love if all this turned into a discussion about pros and cons of different winning/point awarding possibilities, not just ‘this is meh, that is cool, so we use it’ again.

Quoted from FAINTAYDAYDAYDAYDAYD

how would round difference work with gravelpit etc. ?

2-0, losers get 0, 2-1, losers get something. I find such issues to be simple to solve once we get to discussing details, but let’s not do it before we decide on a single idea, okay?

Quoted from FAINTAYDAYDAYDAYDAYD

how would round difference work with gravelpit etc. ?

Would keep it the same way it is now, it would be nice to somehow do something about it but a) I don’t know what b) much more difficult than this as it would probs need to include the time points are capped etc.

Points = Rounds where if one teams’ round total >5, then it is reduced to 5 (only concerning the awarding of points) and the opposite team’s by equally as many (keeping the round difference intact), with a bonus point to the winning team.

5-0 = 6 points, 0 points
5-1 = 6 points, 1 point
3-2 = 4 points, 2 points
6-1 = 6 points, 0 points
10-8 = 6 points, 3 points
Gravelpit would be a 6,0 or 4,2

Promotes non-turtling play and rewards the losing team with points if they did well. Only bad thing is that intense, low-score games don’t score as highly but then again it’s in line with rewarding a team that could do better (like 5-0) more points.

lol no

Quoted from Vali

Points = Rounds where if one teams’ round total >5, then it is reduced to 5 (only concerning the awarding of points) and the opposite team’s by equally as many (keeping the round difference intact), with a bonus point to the winning team.

5-0 = 6 points, 0 points
5-1 = 6 points, 1 point
3-2 = 4 points, 2 points
6-1 = 6 points, 0 points
10-8 = 6 points, 3 points
Gravelpit would be a 6,0 or 4,2

Promotes non-turtling play and rewards the losing team with points if they did well. Only bad thing is that intense, low-score games don’t score as highly but then again it’s in line with rewarding a team that could do better (like 5-0) more points.

Something along these lines, (though this is just my opinion) but more points for wins mayhaps? 1 makes it as valuable as a single round (usually) which isn’t really enough
and the things people above mentioned as well, havent thought bout em >.>
Quoted from grimbar

[…]

That’s not how logic works dummy

you are the person who should speak the least about logic, sir <3

Quoted from Dummy

[…]
are you people special, no offense?
this is completely the opposite of what I am saying.

to clarify as I guess I wasn’t clear enough?
Rounds would count as very little. The fact whether you won or lost the map would be the deciding factor but rounds should be factored in as well.

If they count so little, then why even bother?

Quoted from Dummy

in response to your example of a 10-8 win, that is indeed possible hence why I want suggestions. maybe completely remove points for rounds from what I suggested and leave in rounds difference?
then you would have incentive to get as much rounds as you can and let them get as little as they can, so collaboration between teams to get as much rounds as possible would be impossible. alternatively, a cap on rounds, though that sounds worse

So how would round difference work? Would 5-3 be better than 2-0 for the losing team?