General rules for online games. — Online Tournaments

dmitrik

10/8/2012 10:36 AM UTC

Auto-translated

Here are some thoughts regarding load games in tournament matches: 1. Whether to use load games or not is a personal decision for each player. 2. If a player uses a load game (one or more), they should provide their opponent with at least as many load games if needed. 3. If one player uses 2 more load games than their opponent, they are essentially playing for a draw.

In reply to dmitrik

ABKSever

10/8/2012 11:46 AM UTC

Auto-translated

dmitrik

Here are some thoughts regarding load games in tournament play:
1. Whether or not to allow load games is a personal decision for each player.
2. If a player uses a load game (one or more), they should provide their opponent with at least as many load games if needed.
3. If one player uses 2 more load games than their opponent, they are essentially playing for a draw.

The first point doesn't require any further explanation.
Regarding the second point, have there been any instances where a player used a load game during a match and then refused to allow their opponent to use a load game in the same match? If so, in my opinion, such players should be identified, and secondly, they should not be allowed to participate in tournaments, because if a player uses such questionable methods to win, I'm not at all sure that they won't use other, unfair methods to win.
Regarding the third point, I'm not sure; it might be applicable for group stages, but for the playoffs, it seems questionable to me, because it's unclear how to proceed if a player loses – should the game be replayed? Should the win be awarded retroactively, even in the case of a loss? Both options seem questionable, so if a player allows a load game and then loses, that's just their fate; no one forced them to allow it, meaning that the first point essentially resolves all the issues here, and therefore there is no need for the third point. All of this is just my opinion.

In reply to ABKSever

dmitrik

10/8/2012 1:45 PM UTC

Auto-translated

ABKSever

The first point doesn't need any further explanation.
Regarding the second point, were there any instances where a player offered a load in a game and then refused it to their opponent in the same game? If so, in my opinion, such players should be identified, and secondly, they should not be allowed to participate in tournaments, because if a player uses such questionable methods to win, I'm not at all sure that they won't use other, unfair methods to win.
As for the third point, I don't know, maybe it's applicable for group stages, but for the playoffs, it seems doubtful to me, because it's unclear what to do, replay the game in case of defeat? Award a win retroactively, even in case of a loss? Both options seem questionable, so if you gave a load to another player and lost, well, that's just how it is, no one forced them to give it, meaning the first point essentially resolves all the issues here, and therefore there is no need for point 3.
It's all just my opinion.

Once, I was eliminated from the playoffs after giving a load to my opponent and not receiving it back, which is why I wrote point 2.
As for point 3, it's essentially the reason I wrote all of this. I think many people have been in situations where they gave loads to opponents and then lost. You could just not give loads at all, but in my opinion, that's absurd, but see point 1. But if loads are given, then there needs to be some mechanism for regulation, which is point 3

In reply to dmitrik

KillAndAction

10/8/2012 2:45 PM UTC

Auto-translated

This topic has been raised more than once or twice. We need to make a fundamental decision: whether to allow loads or not. If not, then all misunderstandings, ambiguities, and grievances should be left to the discretion of the players. If we do allow them, then I think we should do it like this: Option 1: 1 or 2 loads on the group stage, 1 load on the playoff stage for each game. If a load is not used, it "expires." Option 2: If a load is given to player A, they must give their opponent (player B) the opportunity to load as well. In this case, if player A requests a second consecutive load, and player B has not yet used their load opportunity, then: either player A is awarded a loss; or, in the event of player A winning, the game is declared a draw. In both options, the judges must be informed about the loads.

Будьте осторожны со своими желаниями. Иногда они исполняются.
Сервер в Discord
Стрим на twitch.tv
Стрим на GG

ЛИДЕР Клана"ХРАНИТЕЛИ НЕБЕСНЫХ ВРАТ" Рейтинг: Латник
Вступление в клан "Хранители небесных врат"

In reply to dmitrik

Quiescent

10/8/2012 3:00 PM UTC

Auto-translated

I stumbled upon this topic by chance... I think the first option from KillAndAction is the most optimal. Because a strict set of rules eliminates the possibility of the situation described by dmitrikom.

In reply to dmitrik

JonnyP

10/8/2012 3:00 PM UTC

Auto-translated

dmitrik

I have some thoughts regarding load times in tournament games:
1. Whether to allow load times or not is a personal decision for the player.
2. If a player uses a load time (one or more), they should provide the opponent with at least the same number of load times if needed.
3. If one player uses 2 more load times than the opponent, they are essentially playing for a draw.

The first option is clear.
In general, I don't understand why people 'beg' for load times – it's a tournament after all. If you lose, either continue the game with what you have or surrender – that's all there is to it. With the time limit (10 minutes per turn), you can think through all your actions and avoid getting 'angry mobs' on you.

In reply to KillAndAction

DanielM

10/8/2012 3:05 PM UTC

Auto-translated

The situation with loads is still more complex. Personally, I believe that loads should not be allowed in tournament games, but I will grant them upon request (with some exceptions), as there is also something like a disconnect, which, theoretically, could be intentional. It is impossible to verify this (even if the person is streaming), so it is better to grant the load when requested than to have someone disconnect and still have to reload. I understand that it is foolish to suspect strong players of such a thing, but even more so, strong players should not suffer from the fact that they will not have the opportunity to correct an unfortunate mistake (misclick, consequences of lag, etc.). And if I grant a load, consider this situation as if a crash had occurred.

In reply to DanielM

Vip.rus

10/8/2012 4:36 PM UTC

Auto-translated

In my opinion, load times should be allowed, because otherwise, stupid "disconnections" will start happening! Load times should be granted strictly at the discretion of the opponent, without any hard feelings. Ideally, it's best to agree on this before the game. If no agreement was reached, there should be no complaints. And the number should be reasonable, I think 2-3 maximum. No matter how many load times are given, if you lose, you lose. If you're not sure, don't offer them. And if a player takes a load time in a specific game, it automatically means that the opponent has the option to take load times equal to the number taken + 1.

In reply to Vip.rus

Adv

10/8/2012 4:57 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Loadings should be entirely up to the players; they cannot be regulated in any way. Knowing that you have a loading available will make you take more risks and enter portals without checking, and venture into dungeons on day 2, which significantly changes the course of the game.
And then there are the common situations involving guilds, skills, and so on, which are not critical, of course, but the game changes significantly as a result, and not for the better.
In general, players should decide for themselves whether to use loadings in each specific situation, and there should be no coercion.

"Да, человек смертен, но это было бы еще пол беды. Плохо то, что он иногда внезапно смертен, вот в чем фокус". БУЛГАКОВ М.А.

DanielM

10/8/2012 7:05 PM UTC

Auto-translated

And one more thing – regarding draws during loading screens, it’s definitely better to leave that to the players’ discretion. It’s certainly doubtful that anyone will actually use this, especially in a tournament with strict time limits, but if they want to, why not?

Leolopus

10/8/2012 8:52 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Loads are a consequence of the unpredictability of the map, specifically the hidden defenses of objects. I think 95% of loads occur for this reason. If loads were completely eliminated, 40-60% of games would end prematurely because someone was unlucky and, for example, encountered a maximum-level dungeon in the starting area. This is not good in itself, as it is not an indicator of a player's skill. Therefore, loads are generally necessary and permissible. The question is how to find the right balance. The situation where one of the opponents takes 3-4 loads during the game and ultimately wins against someone who didn't take any also casts doubt on the game's result. In general, I propose the following: the permissible number of loads for each side should not exceed TWO, if both sides agree to loads in general. Two is the maximum; it could be one or none, as they agree. But there is another option for loads: when a side requests a load, it automatically skips its turn. In a simultaneous turn system, this is more difficult to track, but in a turn-based system, it is not a problem. The number of such loads can be more than two, depending on the agreement. The key is that in this scenario, both sides benefit: the losing side gets the opportunity to continue the game, and the second player has the opportunity to improve their position or gain a significant advantage due to the opponent's downtime. That's how it could work. By the way, I already practice these load suggestions in my games, so this will not be news to some

"Шанс есть всегда, но не везде." ;)

fil0sof

10/9/2012 12:55 PM UTC

Auto-translated

Leo's suggestion about skipping a turn is quite reasonable and worth discussing. But, honestly, the most sensible suggestion regarding save-loading that I've heard is this: the number of save-loads is unlimited, but they must be taken strictly in turn. That is, any player can request the first save-load. This automatically gives the right to the second save-load to the next player. No player can take two save-loads in a row, but if a player takes the first, then the second, the first can take another one. And so on, endlessly, even if each turn involves loading the game 10 times, as long as it's strictly in turn. This way, you'll always be protected from a single random mistake; the first save-load will be built into the game rules, but your blunder will give your opponent a chance. And an unused save-load, i.e., if your opponent has taken one more save-load than you, can be converted into a turn skip, according to Leo's system. In my opinion, this is optimal. As for "strictly at the discretion of the players," I've never liked this option because there are players who simply don't allow save-loads. And if you lose a game because you were too lazy to check the portal, even though it's frustrating, it's at least somewhat justifiable. But I consider a loss due to a misclick to be completely unfair.

669773111

In reply to fil0sof

ABKSever

10/9/2012 1:29 PM UTC

Auto-translated

There shouldn't be any mandatory load orders. Players can agree on them before the game, request or offer them, but I don't think it's appropriate to make it a mandatory requirement for players. The only rule regarding load orders that makes sense is if a player takes a load order, they should return it, as Dmitrik mentioned (I thought this was self-explanatory, but since there were examples to the contrary, it should be stated).

In reply to ABKSever

JonnyP

10/9/2012 2:50 PM UTC

Auto-translated

ABKSever

...if you took a load, you should return it, as Dmitrik wrote about (I thought it was self-explanatory, but since there were examples to the contrary, it should be stated).

Well, those are just some heartless people...:smile48:
Regarding misclicks - anything can happen, but ultimately it's up to the opponent to decide. And there's no need to get offended, otherwise, for many, the game loses its fun aspect in tournaments.

In reply to ABKSever

Leolopus

10/9/2012 6:09 PM UTC

Auto-translated

ABKSever

There should be no mandatory load orders. You can agree on them before the game, ask/give them, but I don't think it's appropriate to introduce this as an obligation for the player. The only rule regarding load orders that makes sense is if you take a load order, you must return it, as Dmitrik wrote about (I thought it was self-evident, but since there were examples to the contrary, it should be stated).

Well, it seems no one was talking about the mandatory nature of load orders; I think this issue will remain purely individual, and each gaming pair will discuss it tete-a-tete. The main thing is not to forget to resolve this issue before the start of the game, and not during the game. But still, a load order with skipping a turn is, in my opinion, much more fun.

"Шанс есть всегда, но не везде." ;)