Forum
Rule revisions (mercs and penalties)
Created 24th June 2012 @ 18:41
Add A Reply Pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
Quoted from Monkeh
[…]
I get the point, but isn’t a match against a team with 3 mercs pretty damn tainted anyways?
Maybe I’ve been excessively lucky with my etf2l experience, but in 6 seasons, ( plus AFS and a whole load of ladder matches), I’m pretty sure I’ve never had to use 2 mercs…ever and only used 1 on a very rare occasion.
I have never found it too difficult to get my games organised and played on time, especially with 2 wildcards that grant you another few weeks to finish any problem match.
Agreement between the two teams maybe should be taken into consideration, but anymore than 3 mercs would be ridiculous.
Yeah more than 3 would be silly, I agree with that to begin with.
Playing with 3 mercs isn’t ideal obviously and it does taint the result to a degree because of arguments that the merc team isn’t as strong etc. But it taints it less than just giving 6 points away.
And I can see where you are coming from but in the upper divs there are less players and more egos so not everyone wants to play together and have a healthy supply of backups. And this wasn’t as much a case of needing mercs cos of poor scheduling but using mercs to complete the season in the fairest way. Which is preferable for the teams and the spectators
The Decerto issue has only been swept under the rug so much because it affected nothing other than who finished 6/7. If TCM hadn’t got those free 3 points of Epsilon this could of been a much bigger deal.
Quoted from Hildreth
[…]
Oh god I just read that, best explanation ever.
The whole matter could be avoided if people could learn to play 7 games (often 6 or 5 due to teams folding) in 8 weeks. I mean the Americans manage to play 16 matches in 8 weeks, we can’t even do half that here in Europe. No wonder they’re better than us.
dont the americans play a map per match?
Quoted from Monkeh
Silly example I know, but to suggest playing with 3 mercs, who could easily carry hard
You have to allow enemy team to use even 1 merc, what’s the problem if they ask for 3? So let the game happen, if both teams are cool with everything.
lol mad
This is so fucking pathetic.
Team gets smacked down by the admins, comes on to the forums to split hairs over the wording of a rule that clearly makes complete sense.
If this was ESL you wouldn’t be allowed any fucking mercs, if you can’t field a team in this most relaxed of competitions just fucking fold.
I’d rather read 1000 unlock threads than this fucking garbage.
FUCK!
I agree with Admirable here, 2 mercs are more than enough. Hell, I’d turn it into a 1 merc allowed rule.
Quoted from Admirable
I’d rather read 1000 unlock threads than this fucking garbage.
FUCK!
This thread is now about the Equalizer.
I will try and reply to every post as to not ignore arguments, and adress every concern:
Quoted from Hildreth
if you can’t even get more than 3 people for a game, then why bother to sign up?
What?
Who said teams sign up with 3 people? Please stick to the discussion and arguments at hand. I would like to keep this discussion clean of irrelevant clutter.
I can see teams having technical difficulties in games, I had games where 2 of our people lag out during the match and we need to get 2 mercs, but that is rare. It is an 8 week season, it isn’t that long to just stay together finish the season.
Again, this has nothing to do with my argument, and is also again based on personal values. The new rule still allows for teams/players to act to their personal values where it is relevant for them (their own matches). Seriously, I think this is the 5th time I repeated the “personal opinion, the rule provides for that” argument?
Quoted from Xerofset
Why allow it in the rules if noone is gonna allow 4 mercs anyway. Useless rule is useless
No, because sportsmanlike teams will acknowledge special circumstances. Our own match VS Punchline is a good example where we had no other choice than to play with 3 mercs (or play 5v6 or forfeit which is both lame). Punchline were fine with it.
Quoted from freshmeatt
So many close-minded people stating their opinions in this thread… I’m worried about your cause, skeej.
And this is why rational people can’t be bothered discussing serious ETF2L issues on the forums. It’s even more sad to see admins in this topic behave in the exact same undesired manner as other random community members.
Quoted from Monkeh
I feel having half, or more, … *same personal opinion story*
Did I say team enough?
Semantically, more than 1 person counts as a team. That’s why I proposed the (admittedly still arbitary) minimum of 2 players. Once again TEAMS CAN DENY OPPONENTS TO USE THIS MANY MERCS AAAAAAAARGH JESUS.
Quoted from Monkeh
[…]
If you suddenly need three mercs…use a wildcard.
There are no wildcards or reschedules in the last week. Also COME ON, stick to the effing point! For the Nth time: If you want to deny opponents 3 mercs in the catchup week and get a default win because they cant reschedule or wildcard, then you are FREE to take that default win! The rule PROVIDES FOR THAT.
Sorry for all the caps, but in this very same post I am now repeating what I said about 3-4 times in my previous post too.
Quoted from MightyMe
Why did Decerto get punished for breaking a rule when both parties agreed to using 1 more merc than allowed, as stated in the rulebook of etf2l. I don’t understand why an outsider ( in this case admin ) would punish decerto when all 12 players who played this match did not mind..
Wow. A glimpse of rationality… Feels so refreshing and liberating. Thank you for that.
Also, this brings me back to my 1st initial proposal, which seems to be ignored, because people are more bothered by repeating the same fallible argument over and over again.
Punishment for rules should be clearly stated. I did another read of the rules and actually it says: Minor Warnings: Any other rule break (1st time) . According to the current ruleset, it seems that using 3 mercs should warrant a minor warning. At least that’s what the rules say.
Quoted from Spike Himself
[…]
Because it is a rulebreak; the question you mean to ask is “why do we have this rule”?
True, a rulebreak usually warrants punishment. However, like I stated before, nowhere do the rules say that “type of rulebreak: 3 mercs with both parties agreeing = default loss for the party using 3 mercs”. It only says that 3 mercs are not allowed, and, like stated above, according to the current rules the only thing it should warrant is a minor warning.
Quoted from unu
You lost, deal with it.
Please stay ontopic and don’t be rude. This is no place to express grudges stemming from a lost highlander match. This post should be removed.
Quoted from Admirable
This is so fucking pathetic.
:(
Team gets smacked down by the admins, comes on to the forums to split hairs over the wording of a rule that clearly makes complete sense.
Then explain HOW it makes sense. No punishment is listed, in fact, the only punishment listed is a minor warning! How does the rule make sense if people are punished for something, where nobody who was involved objected? (victimless crime). You state things as if they’re on-the-nose-obvious, but they clearly aren’t, unless you can provide a real argument.
Quoted from Hildreth
[…]
Oh god I just read that, best explanation ever.
The whole matter could be avoided if people could learn to play 7 games (often 6 or 5 due to teams folding) in 8 weeks. I mean the Americans manage to play 16 matches in 8 weeks, we can’t even do half that here in Europe. No wonder they’re better than us.
Again, irrelevant bullcrap is being pulled into the matter. I am here to propose a rulechange that should be safe and self-coordinating, and won’t change anyone’s experience of playing ETF2L for the most part. These snarky “lol l2fieldenoughplayers” comments (there is really not any more value in your comment than purely that) aren’t helping or adding anything to the discussion.
Also, how did you just read that explanation, when you already posted once after almightybob’s post? Please read the thread before you post.
I tried to refrain from referring to the Decerto – Punchline situation because I wanted to talk about the rule change in a general manner (obviously, the motivation for me making this topic stems from that “drama”, no need to point that out) but people keep arguing as if there cannot POSSIBLY be any scenario where a team would need this amount of mercs (once again, why would the rule change be a problem then?). We played a great game in fierce competition. Having used Luzzu (who was added to our roster last minute but couldn’t play that night) instead of either solly merc (wOllie & MightyMe) wouldn’t have suddenly made this a “real” team vs team game. It would only have made the game rule-compliant, which really really only is a technical difference. A technical difference for which the punishment is out of proportion and undocumented.
The point is that sometimes circumstances are extremely problematic, as in my own team’s case. Both teams do want to play a great official, both teams are happy with the results, but are hampered by a rule and punishment for which no player asked. I don’t see how victimless crimes are a good thing.
The other point is that I’m not trying to revert any decisions made in the past, or about our Pline-Decerto match. I’m trying to propose some improvements to the rules for future seasons. Especially my request to clarify the rules, and rulebreak punishments, seems unobjectable, no?
People don’t have to be so agressive about my 4 merc rule proposal. If there is anything objectable about it, just say it in a normal fashion.
Last edited by skeej,
Quoted from skeej
True, a rulebreak usually warrants punishment. However, like I stated before, nowhere do the rules say that “type of rulebreak: 3 mercs with both parties agreeing = default loss for the party using 3 mercs”. It only says that 3 mercs are not allowed, and, like stated above, according to the current rules the only thing it should warrant is a minor warning.
http://etf2l.org/rules/league-rules/#1 1.4
“Teams caught using an unregistered merc, or a merc without their opponent’s permission, will receive a default loss and a warning.”
While I agree that the wording could be better this rule can easily be extended to mercs that are not allowed by the league.
Using a lineup that greatly differs from the one you used before DOES influence the other teams as well, I would say. You perform different with different players and may win or lose a map you would not have won or lost with your other lineup (which is also what the hijack rule is for to prevent, to have equal premises for all teams that are playing you).
Concerning the maximum number of mercs we have to draw a line somewhere. The most convincing argument for the 4 merc proposal I read in here was “everything with more than 1 player is a team” but teams in TF2 consist of 6 players.
The best supporting argument for the current merc rule in my opinion is that a “team” should be considered a “team” if more than half of the players are on the roster which I personally find more convincing.
And now for some offtopic: You claim that the PL – decerto case is a “victimless crime”. Now if two teams agreed to play with sv_cheats 1, would that be a victimless crime as well? The league rules are not only to protect from abuse but also to ensure equal premises for all teams. That is why you can not edit the config or switch maps or play with cheaters, even if both teams agree. If you are allowed to modify a rule it is mentioned, by the way. For example you may allow up to two mercs or you may reschedule, if both teams agree.
Quoted from skeej
True, a rulebreak usually warrants punishment. However, like I stated before, nowhere do the rules say that “type of rulebreak: 3 mercs with both parties agreeing = default loss for the party using 3 mercs”. It only says that 3 mercs are not allowed, and, like stated above, according to the current rules the only thing it should warrant is a minor warning.
If all you’re after is for the rules to be more clear, then yes, I agree. That doesn’t require a thread with walls of text and discussions though; simply !admin on irc and ask for someone to add it :)
Still though, you didn’t field your own team (less than the majority of it, at any rate), so I can’t say I feel the default loss is too heavy a punishment.
It is your very own responsibility as a team and/or team leader to be able to actually field your team come the match date. You agree on this by signing up in the first place.
It baffles me that nobody went to consult with an admin before you played this game and on your own account went to amend the rules. The admin would’ve said “no you can’t do that” and then nothing could’ve gone wrong.
Last edited by Spike Himself,
You say you don’t want to delve into your game against Punchline but that’s exactly what this is about. Without that incident you wouldn’t have brought up this discussion in the first place so obviously people will comment on it.
You are right in pushing for better documentation and changes to the rules, but it all stems from this one game where you feel you’ve been wronged, and although the punishment for the breaking of rule 2.1.2 isn’t documented, it certainly isn’t unprecedented. You seem like a smart guy so I’m fairly confident you were aware of the consequences when you still chose to play the game with three mercs.
Personally, I would not change the rule itself. I hate playing against mix teams because they play unpredictably and make it hard to employ regular tactics. It is already very unsportsmanlike to refuse mercs in higher levels so If up to 4 mercs would be allowed I’m sure some teams would ask for that, and I then would deny them and be the bad guy. :(
Had the same thing before, we had to play our last game this season and were probably gonna have to use 3 mercs, so i asked the opponent and they said they would allow 4 merc if needed, so i asked the admins and they told us that even if the other team agrees its still a default loss. We got 4 of our own team in the end thanks to our huge roster, but i still think its ridicolous that if the other team agree, the admins step in and still make it a default.
Also, comparing this to sv_cheats? Doenst make much sense, i get your point but its out of context.
Admins should either clarify the rules concidering the merc rules (cant find anything about defaults when using 3+ mercs) or be less harsh on this certain team. Rules are rules, but if they re not clear its a bit to easy to punish a team by giving them default loss rather then having a clear discussion about it. Also i lolled at the major warning.
In response to Spike (and Snyyppis): In regards to what happened with pline-decerto, you’re very right about consulting an admin beforehand. I should have done that. To be honest, I actually wasn’t aware of the 2 merc rule (my own fault)! As Punchline were fine with the mercs I assumed that it wouldn’t be a problem (and I was not aware of the eQ – CKRAS drama a few seasons ago; someone pointed me to that match page recently and tbh that case was handled in an even more ridiculous way).
That was 100% my own mistake of being ignorant towards the rules, but still leaves the issue of not having a rulebreak punishment documented, and the punishment being disproportional.
Quoted from CanFo
[…]Using a lineup that greatly differs from the one you used before DOES influence the other teams as well, I would say. You perform different with different players and may win or lose a map you would not have won or lost with your other lineup (which is also what the hijack rule is for to prevent, to have equal premises for all teams that are playing you).
I guess this is the first valid complaint against increasing the possible mercs amount. My counter argument is that, outside of the catch-up week, any player can be added to the roster 24 hours in advance, and not count as a merc. Added players like Brego and Luzzu never pcw’d with us at all, how are they more part of the team? Like I said in my previous post:
“Having used Luzzu (who was added to our roster last minute but couldn’t play that night) instead of either solly merc (wOllie & MightyMe) wouldn’t have suddenly made this a “real” team vs team game. It would only have made the game rule-compliant, which really really only is a technical difference. A technical difference for which the punishment is out of proportion and undocumented.”
One can think of soooo many hypothetical situations where team-circumstances make them perform differently with each game. Teams with huge rosters can field different lineups for every game. Teams can keep adding players to their roster 24 hours in advance. Teams can switch main classes every game. Teams can agree to not even bother try winning in a game (or not? I still don’t see how this is not allowed), etc etc etc. In the end, you can’t force teams to play as teams in a league. It should be a thing that regulates itself. A consistent team should theoretically be a stronger team, so it’s in the teams own interest to play with the same lineup every time. (yes, teams can use strong mercs to be stronger, but again here we give the opponent the chance to deny mercs)
Concerning the maximum number of mercs we have to draw a line somewhere. The most convincing argument for the 4 merc proposal I read in here was “everything with more than 1 player is a team” but teams in TF2 consist of 6 players.
The best supporting argument for the current merc rule in my opinion is that a “team” should be considered a “team” if more than half of the players are on the roster which I personally find more convincing.
But ultimately it’s just as arbitrary. More than 1 person is semantically a team, at least half the players makes a team, etc. Actually ETF2L proves how arbitrary it is, because “more than half of the players” would mean that: max mercs for highlander is 4. It is currently 3.
And now for some offtopic: You claim that the PL – decerto case is a “victimless crime”. Now if two teams agreed to play with sv_cheats 1, would that be a victimless crime as well? The league rules are not only to protect from abuse but also to ensure equal premises for all teams. That is why you can not edit the config or switch maps or play with cheaters, even if both teams agree. If you are allowed to modify a rule it is mentioned, by the way. For example you may allow up to two mercs or you may reschedule, if both teams agree.
Agreed, teams cannot make up their own rules on the spot, even if both sides agree. That is not my problem though. The problem is the undocumented punishment that is disproportional to the circumstances. Like Vlijm says, you can’t equate all these offenses to the same level of severeness! It’s not black and white. Were this match wildcardable, or at a time of unlocked rosters, then it would have been silly to play with mercs. My point is that when a rule is undocumented, don’t hand out a punishment without looking at the circumstances. But this topic is not meant to discuss the particular decerto-punchline case.
If you want to blindly punish a team for breaking a rule, do so by pointing to a set-in-stone rulebook. This brings me back to the start: this is why I am asking for both more rule/punishment clarification, and a change of the merc rule.
Last edited by skeej,
Add A Reply Pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
content rss