Forum
Golden Cap Rule
Created 11th January 2011 @ 22:11
Add A Reply Pages: « Previous 1 ... 3 4
Quoted from WildCard
It isnt a problem imo, its simply how it is :) both teams had exactly the same chance on the golden cap roudn at taking middle initially, if which ever team took mid decides to turtle thats there right to do so.
Saying its unfair that you dont get to play another round if nonoe caps all cp’s seems rarher stupid as im sure the team who won mid would think it unfair on them to have to play another round after obviously dominating the roudn to get into the position to hold mid.
If you simply change it so you have to cap all cps to win the golden cap teams are still going to be less inclined to be agressive, as there is still just as much to lose in a failed push, they prolly wont be as much turtling but you wont suddenly see a super agressive game either.
One of the problems teams have with gravel being b03 is the time it takes to play it enforcing golden caps to be won outright could potentially increase map times to 1 hour :P unlikely but possible.
Anyway not that fused tbh :D just think its fine as it is you lose mid you have 9 minutes to do somthing about it.
this sounds reasonable.
the bo3 gravelpit was introduced because teams were moaning about gravel being the map where “shit teams” get draws against “good teams” due to 1 unlucky/lucky situation. with bo3 this has been resolved. making it gc doesn’t make any sense since it would still reward the “shit team”
Last edited by baerbel,
For a golden cap to work.
It has to be a Golden CAP – an EXTRA round
I know I already can sense the whine of all the kiddies, “but it may take 20 minutes for an extra round”, answer ask your parents if you can stay up late.
The 20 min round would be an extreme situation, all golden cap rounds I’ve played in have been over in less than 5 minutes (granted only played ~3).
I expect the 20 min rounds In golden cap, will happen as often as the 75 minutes of Gravel pit (next to never)
Also win limit 5 (like usa rules), instead of Win difference 5 (would instantly remove a possibility of a 5-5 draw etc)
Quoted from Chaplain
[…]
Your two pence?
why yes. Ever heard of the term “my 2 cents”? lets just say I dont use cents
Quoted from Tikcus
Also win limit 5 (like usa rules), instead of Win difference 5 (would instantly remove a possibility of a 5-5 draw etc)
this
Deciding the game doesn’t necessarily have to follow the same format as the game thus far (eg. football and penalties), all that is important is that both teams are presented a fair chance to work toward a single means of winning the match, and that this is feasible to achieve within a finite period. What those means are is really is not that important, just so long as there aren’t ulterior means of winning a game that only become feasible at an arbitrary point of the match.
Last edited by kaidus,
Quoted from Tikcus
Also win limit 5 (like usa rules), instead of Win difference 5 (would instantly remove a possibility of a 5-5 draw etc)
This is what they use in Asia as well. Works fantastic, as it encourages teams to race to 5, triggering a nice balance between super agressive play and not so super defensive play. From my experience, winlimit 5 generally gets better reception, because games are guaranteed to end after 30 minutes. In the case of a draw (rarely) on both maps (which is even more unlikely, since strategies can be studied and formulated as counterstrats) then we go into a stopwatch map or a third map, and from there, see who caps fastest (don’t bother with points) for stopwatch and who wins a point fastest in other cases.
Just my honest opinion.
First time I played with windifference 5, i didnt know it was windifference 5, and yelled gg when our score was 5-3. made me look like a moron, but everyone was like ‘if only that were true’ lol
Last edited by FIR,
Quoted from Koeitje
The issue is the completely arbitrary rule that the one that holds middle wins the golden cap round.
that’s why being forced to cap ALL the points is a good idea
winlimit 1; timelimit 0, gogogo
Quoted from Martn
Better suggestion:
Timelimit 0, Winlimit 1
That
To be honest i don’t think the curent GC is a big issue and maybe some things are more important to resolve in comp TF2, but yes the “holding the mid” thing is not perfect.
Timelimit 0, Winlimit 1 keep the ruleset simple, prevent teams to foolishly turtle and is by far the most fair thing to do. Only bad thing is that you could possibly have an infinite GC but hey, esport is sport and that also happen in real sport, remember the infinite penallty kicks and the wimbledon match between Nicolas Mahut and John Isner in wich the 5th set finished on 70-68! At least it was fair.
And for god’s sake count gravel pit 2-1 like a goldencap, there’s no reason that’s a win…
Last edited by Keyro,
What would we do at LAN without our epic golden cap finishes if we implemented winlimit 5? )))) I like golden caps, it’s a bit of an excitement thing, spectating and playing. Unless it’s a bunch of people just turtling mid-point for 10minutes ¬_¬
I prefer the idea of capping a full round with 10 minute resets – as Admirable previously mentioned.
Last edited by Nymthae,
Should be 2 minute resets, so people literally have to go balls out aggressive to win :D
Quoted from kaidus
The GC rule that states after 10 mins the team holding mid CP wins sucks, straight up. As well as being a stupid way of deciding who wins, it also gives the same kind of advantage to teams holding fourth as would a round advantage in normal play with nothing being done to have deserved it (that advantage being, the team who holds fourth will win if time runs up so can play it very slow, force the other team to take risks etc etc).
Golden Cap rounds exist to determine a winner no matter what. Because of this they have a timelimit as well as the mid point rule. The timelimit guarantees that the match doesn’t go on indefinitely (the same reason we have the 15 minute delay rule for the start of the game). The reason for the mid point rule is as follows –
Whilst a round is underway there is a winning team and a losing team. The winning team is the one that currently holds the most control points. After the mid point battle, the team that holds mid is the winning team. If we were to say ‘first to cap mid wins’, then you can see how this immediately applies to the winning team. Obviously, if a team captures all points, they win the round. Common sense.
Including a timelimit means that we reward the winning team (the one who holds the most capture points) with the victory. That sounds very fair to me.
On the point of turtling, if the winning team decides to turtle, then how is that unfair? They’ve done everything right to gain the advantage in the round, by capturing mid and possibly fourth as well, as long as they hold these then they are clearly still the best team in that round.
If there is a timelimit 10 reset without the mid point rule, then any team that loses mid and fourth will just turtle last for the remainder of the 10 minutes. This rewards the team which is doing worst (i.e. the one with the least control points held). They can defend without fear of loss, because a successful defence just forces the map to be reset again.
Forcing the defending team to attack means that we force them to prove that they’re the better team by beating the attacking team for control of one or two CPs. Forcing the attacking team to attack last means that we force them to risk any advantage they’ve gained through their better play in order to guarantee victory.
Of course all victory conditions in any sport are completely arbitrary, if football games were played to 120 minutes then a team that won 2-1 in 90 minutes might end up losing 3-2 in 120. Playing TF2 for 30 minutes means a team can win 3-2 with their final capture happening in the last 2 minutes, playing for 45 minutes might have meant they lost 4-3. Both teams have the same chance and method of winning no matter what the timelimit.
Add A Reply Pages: « Previous 1 ... 3 4
content rss