Forum
Viaduct proposal
Created 13th November 2014 @ 14:36
Add A Reply Pages: 1
Viaduct is fine map, but the point scoring for it isn’t.
The point scoring system for maps that ETF2L is currently using has no real flaws as long as no team drops in the division . When a team drop happens viaduct makes it more tricky. I’ll give a simple example:
Lets say one team drops in the division. This leaves 2 teams having to play viaduct only once per season while the remaining 5 teams has to play it twice. Of course this applies to all other maps too, but only viaduct has different scoring ( no golden cap rules leading to only possible outcome of 3-0). So lets say we have two perfectly equal teams in same division and they both get defeated by close games 4 maps in a row, where close game counts as a golden cap loss or 2:3 in case of viaduct. One team has to play viaduct once (due to dropped team) while the other team plays it twice because dropped team doesn’t affect their viaduct weeks.
Team1 —– 3 gc losses + viaduct loss = 3 points in the table
Team2 —– 2 gc losses + 2 viaduct losses = 2 points in the table
Now 1 point difference isn’t a lot but its still a difference where there shouldn’t be one.
If two or more teams drop in the division it creates even more differences of possible outcomes between the remaining teams depending on which ones play viaduct and which ones don’t.
Basically there are two options:
1) reward losing teams on viaduct if there was a close game (meaning 3:2). Which i guess we could call it bo4 + golden cap round if the result is 2:2 which again basically makes it bo5(first to 3) keeping viaduct’s mechanics same as it is now
2) enforce full map wins for all maps (losing team gets no reward for losing golden cap and winning team takes full 3 points)
tl;dr:
If teams drop in division some teams have to play more viaduct while other teams may not even have to play it in the season. Viaduct has no golden cap rules making it different from the rest of the maps and because of it all remaining teams in the division cant have equal scoring pattern.
Discuss.
So the idea is that if a team is narrowly behind another team then playing cp maps favors them more than playing viaduct?
This argument is stupid in my opinion because it works in other situations too. Let’s imagine two teams team 1 and team 2 are strong on every map besides badlands and then 2 teams drop both of which would have played team 1 on badlands but not team 2 and so team 1 gets rewarded for those teams dropping because they don’t have to play their weak map while team 2 does.
I think that the golden cap system is bad either way but the argument that one team gets to play more or less of one map because of it is not really the reason why. I think making some strange ‘if it’s 2-2 then it’s a golden cap’ rule just seems wrong to me as it doesn’t compare to the cp rules which state that it’s a golden cap if after 30 mins if the teams are even not if they reach a certain scoreline.
Last edited by hr,
Yes, the point scoring is unbalanced and kinda crappy. In highlander it is even worse since payload and a/d maps have possible scores of either 6-0 or 4-2 only whereas weeks with 2 maps i.e. koth and 5cp have possible scores of 6-0, 5-1, 4-2 or 3-3.
However I’m pretty sure this was discussed in another thread already and no better suggestion has really been made.
Quoted from hr
So the idea is that if a team is narrowly behind another team then playing cp maps favors them more than playing viaduct?
This argument is stupid in my opinion because it works in other situations too. Let’s imagine two teams team 1 and team 2 are strong on every map besides badlands and then 2 teams drop both of which would have played team 1 on badlands but not team 2 and so team 1 gets rewarded for those teams dropping because they don’t have to play their weak map while team 2 does.
I think that the golden cap system is bad either way but the argument that one team gets to play more or less of one map because of it is not really the reason why. I think making some strange ‘if it’s 2-2 then it’s a golden cap’ rule just seems wrong to me as it doesn’t compare to the cp rules which state that it’s a golden cap if after 30 mins if the teams are even not if they reach a certain scoreline.
Its not the teams are bad@certain maps case. If a team is bad at badlands or bad at viaduct its up to them to improve, rules have nothing to do here. Im pointing out that viaduct can change how teams could score. Like some teams have less golden cap reward options only because they have to play viaduct twice. Again you can say “learn to play viaduct=ez 3 pts every time” but its not the case.
Looks like more of an issue with the ETF2L golden cap ruleset+point distribution rather than the way that viaduct works right now (bo5 is fine tbh)
Scrapping the golden cap rule so that a GC win = Regular map win seems to be a change that some people would like to see happen while some others don’t.
It has it’s pros an cons.
Having distinguished and equal point distribution throughout both gamemodes and all maps is probably the biggest pro.
The only con I can think of right now is that the losing team wouldn’t receive a “consolation price” anymore,which IMO isn’t that big of a deal.
After all if you lose you lose,that’s the way it is.
But then again I’m amongst those who are heavily in favor of scrapping the 1-1-1 GC point distribution system anyways,so my view might be biased.
Last edited by ducky,
GC points might become irrelevant with the possible implementation of the Swiss-system. Let’s wait out the outcome for that discussion.
Add A Reply Pages: 1
content rss