Since when have the french ever been any kind of bad boys?

I thought you guys are mostly good at surrendering ;D !

A more elegant solution would be to simply allow the other team to un-pause after a set amount of time, rather than automatically resuming. This would allow teams to wait as long as they need to and would hinder any abuse. You could also keep the relatively short 90s timer for this I think, as it should be enough time for the person affected to at least communicate to their team what is going on and if they can get back in.

Otherwise you would realistically need a very long time out to cover potential problems with NS2. Can anyone even load into a server in ideal circumstance inside 90s? Never mind the ultimate worst case scenario of a hard lock requiring a complete reboot.

With regards to points 3 (stricter scheduling) and 5 (reduced mercs), I think you should consider differing rules for the lower divisions at this point. It is not unreasonable to ask the more serious players higher up in the divisions to adopt a more professional attitude with regards to scheduling or their team player commitments. However, lower down there needs to be room for a more "casual" experience. For better or worse the ENSL is the only competitive game in town and people who can not guarantee their availability every weekend for months should still be able to play for fun. If you try to push those people to be more active than they wish to be they are more likely to quit competitive than step up.

Ultimately I think the rules should reflect that the focus is different for lower divisions as it is more about having some fun matches, even if that means 4 weeks late with 3 mercs it would be better than a forfeit.

Cognito
With regards to points 3 (stricter scheduling) and 5 (reduced mercs), I think you should consider differing rules for the lower divisions at this point. It is not unreasonable to ask the more serious players higher up in the divisions to adopt a more professional attitude with regards to scheduling or their team player commitments. However, lower down there needs to be room for a more "casual" experience. For better or worse the ENSL is the only competitive game in town and people who can not guarantee their availability every weekend for months should still be able to play for fun. If you try to push those people to be more active than they wish to be they are more likely to quit competitive than step up.

Ultimately I think the rules should reflect that the focus is different for lower divisions as it is more about having some fun matches, even if that means 4 weeks late with 3 mercs it would be better than a forfeit.

I disagree with this. We had many lower end teams in season one of the AusNS2 league, and we enforced the same scheduling rules for them without any issues. Stricter deadlines forces people to micro-manage their time better, regardless if they want to play casually or not.

Also if you allow teams to delay their matches until whenever they feel like it, there is always someone who is going to get annoyed because they managed to clear their own schedule around that of the proposed/default time. So by delaying a match, you are in fact making it more difficult for casual players as they have to be available for even more days/weekends to play.

I would also ask you this: what is the point of joning the NSL as opposed to scrimming/pcw if you want to play 4 weeks late with 3 mercs - it defeats the purpose of the league. Sure there may be the odd week teams can't play each other, but the idea of the league is to enforce a structured season with consistant match play.

Another thought I had was friendly fire. I'm honestly not 100% sure why we have friendly fire and please don't say because NS1 had it. For aliens, I can understand making pack play more skillful and grinding buildings more difficult, but for marines, the percentage doesn't seem impactful. Should we remove it? Increase it to 50%, 67%?

Let's discuss.

Cognito Ultimately I think the rules should reflect that the focus is different for lower divisions as it is more about having some fun matches, even if that means 4 weeks late with 3 mercs it would be better than a forfeit.

You enter a season with the understanding that there are set matches and dates. If you're not able to gather your team for 4 weeks at a time out of a 3 month season, might as well not entire a season or tournament and just play random gathers/pcw with your team instead?

Zefram
You enter a season with the understanding that there are set matches and dates. If you're not able to gather your team for 4 weeks at a time out of a 3 month season, might as well not entire a season or tournament and just play random gathers/pcw with your team instead?

It is not about being unable to play completely for 4 weeks, I agree at that point it would be ridiculous. The problem tends to occur in my experience where teams have limited availability and on the week your meant to play your availability and your opponents do not overlap. After missing a week scheduling the match when you also have more to schedule can become difficult, leading to slips and such. This tends to occur most with cross continent play because of course that can only happen at the weekend.

Playing in a season is more attractive at least to me because of the more competitive atmosphere where you participate in a serious of games that have some significance. You can study your opponents, practice strategies and get involved in the actual season to whatever degree you desire. The advantage over a PCW is the relative importance of the games, the introduction of new opponents and also if the season is constructed well, the introduction of new opponents at your level that are worth playing.

I would not suggest that you just replace all the rules with one that states "PLAY THE GAME", but I think the most important thing to do at lower levels is to encourage them to play. The rules from the previous seasons were fine in this regard (the merc rules specifically do encourage you to be accommodating and actually play). I would not suggest that means you HAVE to agree to play whenever and however your opponent likes, just that you should be able to if you want to.

Also Bonage I would hope my reply to Zefram addresses your argument about PCWs etc. I am not familiar with the scheduling rules of the AusNS2 league, but it is certainly easier to schedule with teams in approximately the same timezone. In particular, if everyone could schedule games on any night of the week for that entire week there probably would not be much of a problem accommodating all 12 players. I would however be reasonably happy with teams being able to force a forfeit if they feel their opponents are being overly difficult or compromising their future games with delays.

So I have been thinking a lot of a way to help with scheduling matches. I assume the new website is still being worked on right? if so, why not include some sort of rescheduling module; a team captain can request a reschedule and propose a time, the other captain would be able to approve the time, choose another etc... then the admins would be able to see that there was at least an attempt to work it out and have the competition module keeping track of the time in realtime, no? blargh that was yucky, but I think you get my point. Also to add something to each team profile on known good scheduling times for help as well would be great. I know that some teams already have a good schedule in place but not everyone knows what that is.

wasabioneif so, why not include some sort of rescheduling module; a team captain can request a reschedule and propose a time, the other captain would be able to approve the time, choose another etc...


Can we all just move over to ausns2.org instead? Their site is LOVELY, and their match scheduling is awesome http://ausns2.org/league.php?r=match&id=29

They also link all the replays and such for each match http://ausns2.org/league.php?r=schedule&leagueid=1 I don't know who exactly puts all the time and effort into the AusNS2 website, but they need a high five.

Oh another I guess related point. Is Mendasp going to be allowed to enable the old alien vision option in the custom hud mod? I would of course be quite in favour.
For those unfamiliar it would add the option to switch alien vision to this:
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=201163952

Is it possible the Custom HUD Mod can remove muzzel flash and impact smoke/debris?

Also I've always thought the random start can be a bit unfair. Especially on maps like tram and veil. I mean I think random should still be used for the first round so teams still have to practice for all scenarios, but then I think It's only fair when the teams switch sides the same locations are used...

Kilo

Also I've always thought the random start can be a bit unfair. Especially on maps like tram and veil. I mean I think random should still be used for the first round so teams still have to practice for all scenarios, but then I think It's only fair when the teams switch sides the same locations are used...

Definitely this^^

Kilo

Also I've always thought the random start can be a bit unfair. Especially on maps like tram and veil. I mean I think random should still be used for the first round so teams still have to practice for all scenarios, but then I think It's only fair when the teams switch sides the same locations are used...

You'd need an announcer before hand of what the spawns will be or the first side south in tram would be at a disadvantage to know if it's server/warehouse.

Also you get a lot of time to change strats appropriately in half time to know how to counter your opponent / set yourself up properly.

@Jeebus Good point, but there are several ways around it.

Still it can't be any worse than having one team starting in sub as aliens and the other having to start in pipe.

But I agree the first team could be at a small disadvantage in having to scout out the other teams start location but that should take no longer than 20 seconds, that's why I say teams should still train for every possible scenario. But like you said an announcer before game would be one way to make this completely fair. I imagine there are other ways too...

1) Okey for me, only question is will this include Alienvision as well as noted by someone else.

2) I'd say the 1 pause per map, and the max duration of 10minutes. It's more than enough time to reconnect even with potatos such as jaivol is using.

3) I vote for no clean up week, this is a season. Not a weekend tournament held 3 months later when everyone else was playing the game, since we're most likely going to have different continents in our divisions again, the notion that was suggested of being able to play your games within the following week if teams can't set the date. As for the scheduling difficulties, there's always going to be assholes that jerk others around, but it's not rocket science to schedule one damn game.

4) You have your game week, default is always the last day of said week. If a team does not want to reschedule and all show up on a server ready to play at set time, forfeit win. Plain and simple. The only fairness you need to be aware of is when signing up for the season, and knowing when is the last time you can play your match. In addition to this, you can change the "default time" according to that timezone those teams are from, as pointed out by kaneh. If people want to play, they come and play. If you let the jerk around, they will jerk around.

5) I think 1 merc is enough, but there should be a notion that if a team wants to use 2 mercs, the opponent needs to approve the use of the merc. So maybe 2 mercs a maximum, the usual division skill preferences apply ofc.

6) Yes jesus christ yes, this was ludacrous last season.

7) Jambi should be there, it's played more then most "official" maps. As for Eclipse, play the custom cup and see after that. I'd vager to guess it might need to loose the random start for aliens, but really havent had the chance to play it at all. :/

8.) You might as well just remove premium league and move everyone who reaches it in to Hall of Fame since they are so awesome. You play the game to become better, that you wouldnt let people who actually try to achieve this compete with these team is just silly. The only question is how big you should make the division and that can't be said until all the teams actually sign up. I'd imagine the division to be somewhere between 6-8 teams.

9.) FF should stay in, unless you can change the % values to be different for marines team and alien team, i wouldn't change anything about it. As for a reasoning? It promotes better gameplay.

my 2 cents

I'd like to see "Best of X maps" back instead of "Best of X rounds". "Best of X rounds" doesn't fit well with an asymmetric game like ns2 and it is so painful to see entire matches with "Best of X rounds" where only aliens or marines win every round, in those games there are no true winner in my eyes. The coin decides the winner.
"Best of X maps" was tested in the Summer Cup and even though there wasn't any extended games, I don't think that would ever become a true problem. If it becomes too extended, teams can just schedule the rest of the match at another date. Those would be some freaking epic games.

swalk
"Best of X maps" was tested in the Summer Cup and even though there wasn't any extended games, I don't think that would ever become a true problem. If it becomes too extended, teams can just schedule the rest of the match at another date. Those would be some freaking epic games.

NO. Absolutely not. My team was one of the teams in the summer cup. For our finals against TWAT, it was supposed to be best of 3 maps. We played 2 maps and went 1-1 on both of them, so it didn't count at all. It took 2 hours, and that time was a complete waste. Both teams were so frustrated we chatted, said f-ck the ENSL rules, and decided if one team won both sides on veil they'd be winner and if we tied again we'd just share first place.

Seriously, it was the worst. Best of maps works if you have a team that has significantly higher skill than the other. It makes them work to earn an entire map, not just accepting a 3-1. For teams that are very close in skill level, it's just painful and never ending.

Go back through and look at the season. Every game that ended 2-2 would be worthless, and every game that was 3-1 would be HALF worthless. It would be soooo time consuming.

I love NS2, but I don't want to commit my entire life to playing it. Scheduling with the different time zones is hard enough. Scheduling with them & having to set aside 3? 4? hours to commit to best of 2 maps? Ugh.

What a pathetic lack of commitment.

Best of X rounds works fine.

Decoytext
I get the impression that you think I'm implying that best of X maps should be applied to every match, which I am not. Obviously you would only have best of X maps during the playoffs. Group play is always a set amount of rounds per match, usually 4 rounds on 2 maps. Also, the scenario you brought up with playing tie for 2 maps and then one team winning both sides on the last map would actually decide the match in that case. That is not a rule you guys made up while playing, that is how "Best of 3 maps" works.
I will try to explain the best of X maps rule to prevent further confusion.
I will give an example of "Best of 3 maps", which was used in the playoffs of the summer cup.
- Teams will normally face eachother playing maximum 3 maps. ONLY if you tie after playing ALL 3 maps, you will play another entire map. And this would repeat until there is decided a winner if you keep playing tie. In theory a match could go on forever, but in practice one team will always take the upper hand and win the match fair and square, not by putting a limit on the total amount possible rounds and "prematurely" decide the match just to force it to end.
- That means one team can win after playing just 2 maps, if they go 4-0.
- It could also bring scenario's like; one team winning the first entire map, then the teams tie the second map, so it's 3-1. Then the second team will have to win both rounds on the third map to stay in the game and go to a 4th extended map, if they lose any of the rounds on the last map in this case they will have lost the match.
- Some examples of possible "results" from best of 3 maps: 4-0, 4-1, 4-2, 5-3, 6-4, 8-6, 10-8 and so on.
My point is this can bring some exciting matches that are truly decided compared to dull ties decided by a coinflip. In my opinion "best of X maps" should be the norm for playoffs unless they are very time pressured, like UWE's live events.

That even teams can get into extended maps is the good thing about best of X maps, it means the rules forces the teams to push themselves to win an entire map instead of betting on a coinflip. It also works with teams of the same skill level, sure it can become an endurance match, but you always have the possiblity of scheduling the rest of the match at another date if you play tie after 3 maps. To be honest I don't think it is the rules fault that you took that long to play two maps. And "Best of 3 maps" isn't really any more of an endurance test than "Best of 7 rounds", which have been used for many playoffs. Both require you to win at least 4 rounds to win the match.

Also, playing tie with best of X maps isn't anymore pointless than to play tie with best of X rounds. I would actually argue otherwise. When you tie with best of X rounds, you get a winner decided by a coinflip. That is a pointless waste of time and potential epic games in my eyes.

I tend to agree with sublime, it really just seems like a lack of commitment from your side and not really something the rules should pay attention to in my opinion, kind of like the responsibility of scheduling your matches, it's just something you do if you like to play and compete. I would hate to win a match if we tied against the other team for a few maps in a row or the other way around, it just seems like an empty win/loss every time it happens, both when playing and spectating.

Sure, best of X rounds works in practice, but it is not the best way to decide the better team and it is most commonly not less time consuming than best of X maps. I would estimate that a maximum of 20% of the playoff matches could possibly go to at least one extended map, but realisticly I imagine MUCH less by looking at previous playoff results.

I would suggest to use "best of X maps", at the very least on a "test basis" in season 4. If it really mass produces long boring games, then I will bite my toungue and roll back on the "best of X rounds" wagon. But so far the summer cup proved differently with the results 4-2, 4-0, 4-2, 4-0. I truly believe that extended maps will for the most part only appear in finals where the teams are really close in terms of their in-game execution, be it high or low level teams, both teams are forced to step up their game and win both sides on at least one map to win the match. The semifinals have 4th vs 1st and 2nd vs 3rd playing against eachother, so the skill difference in the semifinals are usually higher than in the final, maybe sometimes with the exception of the 2nd vs 3rd semifinal.
These are the last two matches of the season we are talking about, not many teams go that far. Shouldn't they be truly epic and played until decided if the teams are playing alien-ties or marine-ties?

As for the merc discussion, I tend to agree with one merc. But as mentioned before division splits should never be the only consideration from an admin/referee when deciding if a merc should be allowed or not. The skill level of the merc should match the skill level of the team he is substituting for. There are still skill gaps within divisions and in some of these cases, teams should be able to dismiss the merc if he/she isn't at the correct skill level. Only if the admin/referee is convinced that the merc is at the correct skill level or the opposing team is just dismissing substitutes to chase a forfeit victory, only then the admin/ref should put down his foot down and force the teams to play with a chosen merc in my opinion. The admin/ref should also keep in mind that a team can purposely keep bringing mercs that are too strong compared to their own team and in that case should tell them to get their shit together and find someone at their own level, in a polite way of course.

With regards to scheduling, I like the idea that you only have 2 weeks from the default time to play your match. So you can maximum have 2 pending matches to play at a single given time. Technically the cleanup week would still have to be there to apply this, but it would not have the same use as it had before.

Friendly fire should stay, I can't see why you see would consider removing it. All it does is promote better play. While the rifle does not really hurt marines much(comparable to parasite I guess), the shotgun can do fatal damage if you hit your teammate by mistake during combat, same goes for bites and swipes.

swalk
I get the impression that you think I'm implying that best of X maps should be applied to every match, which I am not. Obviously you would only have best of X maps during the playoffs.

My apologies. Your first post is very unclear and doesn't specify best of X maps is only to be used in playoffs. It sounded like you were suggesting it should be used during normal season play.

Decoy
My apologies. Your first post is very unclear and doesn't specify best of X maps is only to be used in playoffs. It sounded like you were suggesting it should be used during normal season play.
Yeah, now that I read it over it does seem unclear if you don't know how "best of X maps" works. I wasn't offended just trying to explain my case, no need for apologies :P I'm just wondering if that changed your point of view on having it in the season.

Feels like the best of X rounds and best of X maps discussion is in every preseason?

If only there was a system that worked in so many games .. right? XD

Like it used to be .. you play 2 maps in group stage no matter what .. and then u play best of X maps .. MY GOD MORONS.. there is a reason this has been done for SO MANY SEASONS .. BUT NS2 ppl prefer coinflip wins i guess!