yea, 1 defense 1 offense is a stupid way to run gravelpit
2 DEFENSE 2 OFFENSE LET'S SEE IT HAPPEN
Someone explain to me how this is better. Each team attacking and whoever gets the better time wins seems reasonable to me. If you did two of each then you could have a tie with each team winning once and losing once.
If anything I think there should be less rounds in the future. Why is best 4 out of 7 better than best 2 out of 3?
yea, 1 defense 1 offense is a stupid way to run gravelpit
2 DEFENSE 2 OFFENSE LET'S SEE IT HAPPEN
Someone explain to me how this is better. Each team attacking and whoever gets the better time wins seems reasonable to me. If you did two of each then you could have a tie with each team winning once and losing once.
If anything I think there should be less rounds in the future. Why is best 4 out of 7 better than best 2 out of 3?
Because we're already playing a max of 3 games, which is very few.
To add to that a match that lasts 8 minutes and is subject to whimsical things happening is just blah. The teams have never played each other before, so going into a situation where it's a one off shot of you doing better than them at capping three points is... meh. There's no adjusting for anything.
yea, 1 defense 1 offense is a stupid way to run gravelpit
2 DEFENSE 2 OFFENSE LET'S SEE IT HAPPEN
Someone explain to me how this is better. Each team attacking and whoever gets the better time wins seems reasonable to me. If you did two of each then you could have a tie with each team winning once and losing once.
If anything I think there should be less rounds in the future. Why is best 4 out of 7 better than best 2 out of 3?
this is the way that is universally hailed as the best way to run gpit:
each team attacks twice, defends twice.
for the first set of attacking/defense, time isn't taken into consideration. that means that both teams can score 3 points (1 point for each point), and end up at 3-3 the first set.
the second set is then the stopwatch round. the team that beats the others team time wins the match, if a tie occurs.
the reason why its run this way is because the first attacking/defense round is generally used to get into the swing of things. i've ran a fucking ton of these things, and having a 6 point setup really helps teams be able to get into the right frame of mind.
since we're only doing 1 attack 1 defense, it means that everything happens too fast. there is no chance to review what went wrong the previous round and try to fix it. that's stupid - it means that luck is a bigger factor than skill/coordination/teamwork.
Xenocide Geek on
i wanted love, i needed love
most of all, most of all
someone said true love was dead
but i'm bound to fall
bound to fall for you
oh what can i do
yea, 1 defense 1 offense is a stupid way to run gravelpit
2 DEFENSE 2 OFFENSE LET'S SEE IT HAPPEN
Someone explain to me how this is better. Each team attacking and whoever gets the better time wins seems reasonable to me. If you did two of each then you could have a tie with each team winning once and losing once.
If anything I think there should be less rounds in the future. Why is best 4 out of 7 better than best 2 out of 3?
Because we're already playing a max of 3 games, which is very few.
To add to that a match that lasts 8 minutes and is subject to whimsical things happening is just blah. The teams have never played each other before, so going into a situation where it's a one off shot of you doing better than them at capping three points is... meh. There's no adjusting for anything.
edit: And it's no fun.
I guess this just doesn't make sense to me. What does adjusting to the other team have to do with anything. If your team is better and can adjust better while playing the round why does it matter?
Its like saying two teams at the Olympics should play each other at least 3 times so they can adjust to each other. That should not be how it works. Team A plays Team B. If Team A is better than they win and move on.
the reason why its run this way is because the first attacking/defense round is generally used to get into the swing of things. i've ran a fucking ton of these things, and having a 6 point setup really helps teams be able to get into the right frame of mind.
since we're only doing 1 attack 1 defense, it means that everything happens too fast. there is no chance to review what went wrong the previous round and try to fix it. that's stupid - it means that luck is a bigger factor than skill/coordination/teamwork.
yea, 1 defense 1 offense is a stupid way to run gravelpit
2 DEFENSE 2 OFFENSE LET'S SEE IT HAPPEN
Someone explain to me how this is better. Each team attacking and whoever gets the better time wins seems reasonable to me. If you did two of each then you could have a tie with each team winning once and losing once.
If anything I think there should be less rounds in the future. Why is best 4 out of 7 better than best 2 out of 3?
Because we're already playing a max of 3 games, which is very few.
To add to that a match that lasts 8 minutes and is subject to whimsical things happening is just blah. The teams have never played each other before, so going into a situation where it's a one off shot of you doing better than them at capping three points is... meh. There's no adjusting for anything.
edit: And it's no fun.
I guess this just doesn't make sense to me. What does adjusting to the other team have to do with anything. If your team is better and can adjust better while playing the round why does it matter?
Its like saying two teams at the Olympics should play each other at least 3 times so they can adjust to each other. That should not be how it works. Team A plays Team B. If Team A is better than they win and move on.
Any team sport in the Olympics does not last 4 minutes.
Any team sport in the Olympics does not last 4 minutes.
Relays do. You train the best you can for it and then you go out and you give it your best. Ultimately the team that has more skill and is better prepared should win. You don't see relay teams lining up 3 times in a row to sort out who wins.
I'm not arguing about this tournament BTW. I'm just trying to understand why playing 6 rounds of Gravelpit is any different than playing 2.
Any team sport in the Olympics does not last 4 minutes.
Relays do. You train the best you can for it and then you go out and you give it your best. Ultimately the team that has more skill and is better prepared should win. You don't see relay teams lining up 3 times in a row to sort out who wins.
I'm not arguing about this tournament BTW. I'm just trying to understand why playing 6 rounds of Gravelpit is any different than playing 2.
You also don't see relay teams doing anything at all to the other people in the race.
That's a none combative competitive sport is not analogous at all.
Any team sport in the Olympics does not last 4 minutes.
Relays do. You train the best you can for it and then you go out and you give it your best. Ultimately the team that has more skill and is better prepared should win. You don't see relay teams lining up 3 times in a row to sort out who wins.
I'm not arguing about this tournament BTW. I'm just trying to understand why playing 6 rounds of Gravelpit is any different than playing 2.
You also don't see relay teams doing anything at all to the other people in the race.
That's a none combative competitive sport is not analogous at all.
agreed...in a relay they're trying to run as fast as possible..that's it...there is no strategy based on what other people are doing....you go out there, you run fast, that's it
in a team sport where you're INTERACTING with the other team you need time to react to them and get used to how they play, one match is not enough for that
Any team sport in the Olympics does not last 4 minutes.
Relays do. You train the best you can for it and then you go out and you give it your best. Ultimately the team that has more skill and is better prepared should win. You don't see relay teams lining up 3 times in a row to sort out who wins.
I'm not arguing about this tournament BTW. I'm just trying to understand why playing 6 rounds of Gravelpit is any different than playing 2.
You also don't see relay teams doing anything at all to the other people in the race.
That's a none combative competitive sport is not analogous at all.
That's a valid point. If you make the approach of rounds being like quarters or periods in a game I can see some of the validity. It just seems dumb to trend out the outcome so much.
Any team sport in the Olympics does not last 4 minutes.
Relays do. You train the best you can for it and then you go out and you give it your best. Ultimately the team that has more skill and is better prepared should win. You don't see relay teams lining up 3 times in a row to sort out who wins.
I'm not arguing about this tournament BTW. I'm just trying to understand why playing 6 rounds of Gravelpit is any different than playing 2.
Just to play devil's advocate, does that mean we could just play one round of well instead of 4 out of 7?
The tournament rules are fine, I think 4 out of 7 is too much to me. Once you've lost 3 times in a row, you get a little disheartened and I don't think the 4th is necessary. I think 3 out of 5 would work just fine.
But it would be nice for there to be one more gravelpit match or something. Maybe like the thing Geek suggested.
But those matches usually last a long time, and have breaks in between.
Innings/Half times/Quarters.
indeed....i just meant that these matches aren't long enough, they don't take enough time for us to figure out the other team...being on each side twice would allow us that time
and yeah, best 3 out of 5 would be better on other maps, by 3 you see the clear winner, and after that loss the other team is completely disheartened.....
The problem with doing gravelpit only once is one little mistake at a critical moment can really blow open a whole round. And it seems silly to have that one round weighted as much as best 4 out of 7 on a different map.
Also, I'd love to get a league or something going, that would be awesome.
Posts
I have the metabolism of a whale, wanna trade?
GM: Rusty Chains (DH Ongoing)
You didnt answer. All the free beers you could ever want, and you didnt answer. Shame shame.
i'm ready for all the free beer i could ever want
my liver's not; but fuck that thing
when you comin' over, You?
2 DEFENSE 2 OFFENSE LET'S SEE IT HAPPEN
most of all, most of all
someone said true love was dead
but i'm bound to fall
bound to fall for you
oh what can i do
Someone explain to me how this is better. Each team attacking and whoever gets the better time wins seems reasonable to me. If you did two of each then you could have a tie with each team winning once and losing once.
If anything I think there should be less rounds in the future. Why is best 4 out of 7 better than best 2 out of 3?
Donate or order a gameserver and help out!
To add to that a match that lasts 8 minutes and is subject to whimsical things happening is just blah. The teams have never played each other before, so going into a situation where it's a one off shot of you doing better than them at capping three points is... meh. There's no adjusting for anything.
edit: And it's no fun.
this is the way that is universally hailed as the best way to run gpit:
each team attacks twice, defends twice.
for the first set of attacking/defense, time isn't taken into consideration. that means that both teams can score 3 points (1 point for each point), and end up at 3-3 the first set.
the second set is then the stopwatch round. the team that beats the others team time wins the match, if a tie occurs.
the reason why its run this way is because the first attacking/defense round is generally used to get into the swing of things. i've ran a fucking ton of these things, and having a 6 point setup really helps teams be able to get into the right frame of mind.
since we're only doing 1 attack 1 defense, it means that everything happens too fast. there is no chance to review what went wrong the previous round and try to fix it. that's stupid - it means that luck is a bigger factor than skill/coordination/teamwork.
most of all, most of all
someone said true love was dead
but i'm bound to fall
bound to fall for you
oh what can i do
[IMG]http://www.alabasterslim.com/0/number 9.png[/IMG]
I guess this just doesn't make sense to me. What does adjusting to the other team have to do with anything. If your team is better and can adjust better while playing the round why does it matter?
Its like saying two teams at the Olympics should play each other at least 3 times so they can adjust to each other. That should not be how it works. Team A plays Team B. If Team A is better than they win and move on.
Isn't this what practice is for?
Donate or order a gameserver and help out!
OH wait, it's not time yet. But I wanted to leave work and I wanted to finish up some work there at the same time. But I said fuckit and left.
Shit, we could do a whole fucking league if you wanted like was supposed to happen when TF2 first came out.
Relays do. You train the best you can for it and then you go out and you give it your best. Ultimately the team that has more skill and is better prepared should win. You don't see relay teams lining up 3 times in a row to sort out who wins.
I'm not arguing about this tournament BTW. I'm just trying to understand why playing 6 rounds of Gravelpit is any different than playing 2.
Donate or order a gameserver and help out!
we're using standard CEVO rules on granary, but then make completely ridiculous rules on gravelpit.
it's obvious that somebody inexperienced created the ruleset, that's all
most of all, most of all
someone said true love was dead
but i'm bound to fall
bound to fall for you
oh what can i do
That's a none combative competitive sport is not analogous at all.
in a team sport where you're INTERACTING with the other team you need time to react to them and get used to how they play, one match is not enough for that
That's a valid point. If you make the approach of rounds being like quarters or periods in a game I can see some of the validity. It just seems dumb to trend out the outcome so much.
Donate or order a gameserver and help out!
But those matches usually last a long time, and have breaks in between.
Innings/Half times/Quarters.
GM: Rusty Chains (DH Ongoing)
Just to play devil's advocate, does that mean we could just play one round of well instead of 4 out of 7?
The tournament rules are fine, I think 4 out of 7 is too much to me. Once you've lost 3 times in a row, you get a little disheartened and I don't think the 4th is necessary. I think 3 out of 5 would work just fine.
But it would be nice for there to be one more gravelpit match or something. Maybe like the thing Geek suggested.
and yeah, best 3 out of 5 would be better on other maps, by 3 you see the clear winner, and after that loss the other team is completely disheartened.....
Also, I'd love to get a league or something going, that would be awesome.
we just did granary and gravelpit, so... i'm sure we can reach some kind of compromise.
most of all, most of all
someone said true love was dead
but i'm bound to fall
bound to fall for you
oh what can i do
How the hell would you score it?
Donate or order a gameserver and help out!
First to build a level 3 turret wins.