Forum

Namely the golden cap rules:

“If one or more rounds ends in a draw and neither team wins 2 rounds after 3 rounds are played, then….”

There is a big problem with this, in the rare scenario where the results go as follows:

Team A wins round 1.
Draw on round 2.
Draw on round 3.

In this scenario, a single golden cap round would decide the winner of the match, despite Team A having won a clear round.

The rules should probably be changed to, “If the result of the match is a tie after 3 rounds then….”

Alternatives would be:

First to 2 round wins, takes the match. First 3 rounds are full length (10 mins, first to 5), and any subsequent rounds are in the Golden cap format (5 mins, first to 1).
This would change it so in the example, Team B would need to win 2 golden cap rounds, while Team A would only need to win 1. Golden cap points system occurs if only after Team B equalize the match score on the first Golden Cap round (They win the first GC, making it 1 win, 2 draws for both teams). If Team A win the first Golden Cap round, they will still obtain the full match points, not using the Golden Cap points system.

—-

No round Draws – Golden cap is played after each round draw to determine the winner. Golden cap points system comes into play if the result ends 2-1 for either team (might make it too easy to bring a game to golden cap rules though).

—-

Either way, I think this needs to be looked at again.

Arx

Potentially some debate as to why Team A should then get the same credit as a team who actually does manage to secure 2 full rounds (if they are awarded the win instead of GC), but then yes, why should they have to play GC when clearly… ;p

Perhaps some basis that 2 draws on turbine = 1 win, so both A/B would get a point after round 3, but having previously won the other round than A would be the rightful winner.

We actually had precisely this what Arx describes. http://etf2l.org/matches/35984/

Round 1: 4-4
Round 2: 1-1
Round 3: 5-1

(In hind-sight, playing the third round was pointless.)

Both us and the opponents figured we had a winner. Admins revoked the results on their own, saying we needed to play a GC.

According to the current rules they were correct offcourse, but afterwards (when I claimed default because opponent forfeited the GC) I tried talking to Emb that these rules needed to be looked at, because it’s weird our opponent can take 2 points in 1 GC over 3 rounds they did not win.

His logic was that our opponent deserved a shot at those 2 points for drawing 2 rounds against us…

Also ban engineer. It just makes defending the intelroom too easy. Without engies the map is fast and fun. With engi it’s just boring and tedious.

Also no, my team didn’t get beaten by an engi, we won with an engi.

Let’s just not play turdbine!

And the 4v1’s…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iw9oHItpEQQ

Quoted from Si^

To be honest why don’t we just have overtime? :x

I say this just because resetting and doing another mid fight seems very hit or miss for two even matched teams that is some what of a coin toss. But dunno just think golden cap isn’t great for ctf.

The thing is, it’s only a coin toss because that’s how people choose to play. It’s not always essential on a map like Turbine to contest the mid at all. The attacking team’s advantage is only that they _might_ get some respawners in time to defend a push on their intel, if they fail their attack. A viable strat is to not commit onto the mid section, and to attempt a medic pick with a soldier and demoman. The rest of your team can be on full defence, and if you land the med pick, you’re going to have an uber advantage to push out with.

It just so happens, most teams would want to push out, and have a winner takes all battle until someone wipes, resulting in a free intel.

Quoted from AcidReniX

[…]

The thing is, it’s only a coin toss because that’s how people choose to play. It’s not always essential on a map like Turbine to contest the mid at all. The attacking team’s advantage is only that they _might_ get some respawners in time to defend a push on their intel, if they fail their attack. A viable strat is to not commit onto the mid section, and to attempt a medic pick with a soldier and demoman. The rest of your team can be on full defence, and if you land the med pick, you’re going to have an uber advantage to push out with.

It just so happens, most teams would want to push out, and have a winner takes all battle until someone wipes, resulting in a free intel.

I agree with you and believe this could be said about most maps. The idea being if you don’t want to go middle without risking a wipe go second etc. However with turbine and ctf maps there is no rule of who has middle wins rule and it could force a stalemate condition on how you are saying. Personally I wouldn’t want to play a stalemate game type isn’t really the style of play I just don’t believe gc fits the game mode of ctf. However I don’t like the idea of writing off a round, feels like time wasted.

I only suggest overtime because it allows teams to play in the state that they are during that time and not focus a random outcome. Regardless there needs to be clarity.