BL Admins : Battle League Rule Challenge : Urgent!!!

[Noto]

I am currently challenging the validity of General Games Rules : Rule 10.

This rule states, "If a player crashes the game doesn't count and is repeated except the team with the crashed player won of if the player crashhed after dying!".

Here is a scenario:

Clan A and Clan B are in a 4v4 Ghost Recon Team clan battle.  After a game starts, close spawn fighting insues.  Once the dust settles we see that Clan A has all 4 players left alive, while Clan B only has one player left alive.  Therefore, this clan battle is a 4v1 with many minutes left of play.  Suddenly, the last player that was left alive for Clan B exits the game and A Rifleman is left in his/her place.

According General Games Rules : Rule 10, this game must be repeated since the player crashed.  The reason why I challenge this rule is because it is simply not fair by any means.  The rule clearly states (in Euro English ) that the game must be repeated, but doesn't this give an advantage to a team that was seemingly going to lose anyway?  It is my opinion that if a player crashes, they might as well be dead, no matter which team they are on.  As it is right now, if a clan goes down to a 3v1, 4v1, 5v1, and so on, the last player remaining for the disadvantaged clan can now exit the game and declare a crash, by his/her own means, or by the encouragement of his/her teammates, thus dodging a probable loss, and then ultimately replaying the match.  

Can we prove someone crashed on purpose?  Of course not.  If someone crashes in this manner more than once in a clan battle, should we suspect something? Yes.  If a clan does this only once during a clan battle, should they still be suspected?  Of course not, because crashes happen.  If a player is going into a clan battle, their system crashing should not become an advantage to their clan.  It should become a disadvantage.  People should have the software, hardware, and Internet connection required to play the game.  If they crash, and nobody else does, then it's obviously due to a malfunction in the system of the player who crashed.  I'm not saying that there is anything they can do about it, but nonetheless, it's their system that crashed, and it should not be an advantage to their clan, or become a disadvantage to the clan they are fighting against, which had no players crash.  Simply replaying the game is not a simple solution.  How can you accurately replay a game that randomly places teams in advantageous and disadvantageous spawn points?  You cannot.

This is what I would like General Games Rules : Rule 10 be changed to immediately:

General Games Rules, Rule 10:  If a player crashes during a clan battle, the clan battle shall continue until all players from one side are eliminated, or when time expires.  Once a player crashes, they are subsequently replaced by an AI Computer Player.  Players on the opposing side of a team with an AI Computer Player must still eliminate the AI player as if it was the original player before he/she crashed, even if the last player left alive is the AI player.

Here are some points as to why the above rule should supercede the current rule:

?   The player who crashed is automatically replaced by an AI Computer player, which will still fight for the clan that it is assigned to.

?   This AI Computer player can still be given way points and can still defend and attack, thus becoming an automatic replacement for the crashed player, although at a diminished capacity.

?   Unfortunately, if the last player crashes, the AI player will not advance or follow way points since there is no one to guide it to do so.

?   The event of the player crashing still leaves a player in his/her place, not a dead body.

?   The advantage goes to the team whose members did not crash.

?   The disadvantage goes to the team whose members did crash.

?   The loophole, in which players can crash on purpose to avoid losing, can no longer be taken advantage of, therefore, ceasing to be a loophole in the rules.

I believe I have made my case.  My version of General Games Rules : Rule 10 clearly addresses the issue of a player crashing during a game.  The crashing of a player during a clan battle does not declare a win, a loss, a tie, nor a replay of the game.  It lets the game play out the way in which Ghost Recon was designed to do.  A crashed player is replaced, although not effectively, by a fighting unit, which will fight until it is eliminated.

I hope that this issue is discussed as soon as possible so that it may be implemented immediately into the General Game Rules.  If anyone has objections to this challenge of General Games Rules : Rule 10, please reply in a manner worth reading: Clear, concise, and with a valid reason.  This is a valid challenge that has been presented in a professional manner, and I would hope that it is dealt with, and replied to, in the same professional manner in which it was presented.

My thanks in advance to the BL Admins in their reading of this post and any future ruling that may become of it.

.::|N| Noto

_________________________________________________________________________

Added 10:38AM : I just wanted to add this thought.  My version of Rule 10 might not be the best means of fixing the loophole that I am trying to effectively address.  It is only one option, but an option that I believe should be enacted in the mean time until a better one comes along.  Remember, I am trying to help close a loophole that some people have discussed recently as an advantageous way of replaying a game.  I am not trying to punish the team whose player crashed.  I know this seems like a swing of the pendulum to the extreme other side, but until someone else can find a more fitting solution, I would rather swing to this side of the pendulum and avoid an abuse to a known loophole.  In short, if the reverse happened to me in a CB, where one of my teammates crashes out, I would completely agree with my version of Rule 10.  I think it is more fair to both teams than to replay the game, which will most likely not be the same.

[Blitz]

Very detailed.  I conquer.

Blitz
X1| DreamTeam Member

[c| Splinter]

Very well thought out Noto.  But me personally, I have to disagree.

I've been in a few situations when a team mate has crashed.  And actually for a good 2 or 3 minutes, the player isn't replaced.  It takes the host's comp a while to realize that the player is no longer there.  For those 2-3 minutes, it's that ever familiar sight of the player just running into the edge of the map.  During that time, they are completely open targets that have no chance of survival, because they cannot react.

I also have to disagree with relaying on an AI player.  Yes, you can set way points, but that in effect creates 2 diminished players.  1 being the AI player, the other being the person that has to stop focusing on their own game to map out way points for the AI player.  Not to mention that the AI player just doesn't play anywhere near the level of a human.  They don't take corners the same way humans do, they can't report enemy positions, and a whole host of other issues.

I have a completely clean, un moddified copy of GhR playing off of a Dual 1.25 G4, Radeon 9000, and 2mbit cable, and I have random bugs all the time.  Sometimes when map loads, I get nothing but a black screen.  I have way more than the minimum requirements, but anomialies still happen.  It's pretty well know that GhR is a pretty poorly written program, with all the million ways you can glitch.

Not to mention, most of the time when a player crashes, it's because their internet connection has just simply dropped.  There is no way that we as players can anticipate system outages at our ISPs.

I completely agree with you that clans that intentionally crash out when they are down is unacceptable.  But as you said, there is no way to know if it was intentional or not.  If you suspect that it is intentional, just don't CB those clans, and inform other clans so they can do the same.

In my opinion, it's just one round, and if your truely better than the other clan, you should be able to beat them again.

[SAR(VoLaTile)]

I agree/disagree with noto. I agree in the part that in a 4v1 when the 1 player crashes...there is a very slim chance of that player winning, so if he crashes i dont think it should be a redo. Althoguh if you are playing WZ,  in a 3v1 or something...and the 1 guy has the WZ, i think its possible for him to win ( he would have a 30-40% chance). So if that 1 player crashes, then i think it should be a redo.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Noto, I completely see the loophole you are trying to close, and while I haven't seen a clan crash on purpose to save a game yet, I have seen clans talk about it (joking or not, they know about it).

The only problem I have is that I don't see your method as being any more fair then the current one.  I'd love to suggest a better option, but I don't have a better one either.  

Not to be a prick, and no, I'd never do this myself, but I could easily make the best player crash out of a game on my host, at will.  I am not going to tell everyone how to do this, because it's just begging for a little abuse, but it's pretty damn easy to do, if you know what you are doing.  All this means is that the loophole is in your rule too, it's just a smaller loophole (till others figure it out).

But if you can figure it out a little better, I'm all for closing the crash instead of lose loophole.

[Noto]

...actually for a good 2 or 3 minutes, the player isn't replaced.  It takes the host's comp a while to realize that the player is no longer there.  For those 2-3 minutes, it's that ever familiar sight of the player just running into the edge of the map.  During that time, they are completely open targets that have no chance of survival, because they cannot react...

I'm not saying that the AI Computer Player is a replacement, let alone an effective one.  The game tries to replace the player who crashed.  I would rather it not.

...I also have to disagree with relaying on an AI player...

Relying on the AI Computer Player would obviously be the most noobish thing anyone could do.  I know no one in their right mind would actually rely on the AI Computer Player, but it could still be used as a tool.  Anyone care to draw fire?

...I have a completely clean, un moddified copy of GhR playing off of a Dual 1.25 G4, Radeon 9000, and 2mbit cable, and I have random bugs all the time.  Sometimes when map loads, I get nothing but a black screen.  I have way more than the minimum requirements, but anomialies still happen...

Playing Ghost Recon is like putting 2 quarters in a vending machine in South Harlem.  You just never know what's going to happen.  Maybe Ghost Recon will work, maybe you'll get that Coke, or maybe you'll get stabbed in the back.  Many of the gamers out there have systems as up to date as your own, and some do not.  I do not intend for this challenging rule to punish people for crashing.  I intend it to close a loophole that definitely needs to be closed in some fashion.  My version of Rule 10 is only one way of dealing with the loophole.  Do you have any suggestions on how to close it?

...In my opinion, it's just one round, and if your truely better than the other clan, you should be able to beat them again...

I completely agree, but you know we all have our bad games.  Everyone out there has lost at least one game to some noob clan.  Since the stakes are higher this season (shorter season, fewer games needed to be played, ties counting towards overall games), every game counts.  A game in which one team is up 6v1 can be replayed if the last player 'decides' to crash.  What if the replayed game gives them a terrific spawn over you, such as a close spawn to a WZ?  This loophole can drastically change a clan battle, especially if it is between two very talented clans, where advantageous spawn points could mean winning the CB.  If a game is replayed, the advantage could easily go the other way.  WZ, Siege, & LMS are all game types where spawn points could decide the CB, regardless of the level of play of the two clans.  Yes, better clans usually win over not so good clans, but I would hate to lose a CB in the finals because of a loophole.

I hope I cleared up my points.  I'm not trying to sway you to go one way or the other, because you have already decided.  You have pointed out some flaws in my own writing with your post that I had to address.

.::|N| Noto

[.::|N| DIESEL]

Noto where are the cheap hookers and beer?!  Opps wrong thread!  

[c| Splinter]

Unfortunately, I don't have a great solution, and I'm not sure a fair one exists.  I'm sure there are clan out there that would abuse this rule, but out of the 90-100 or so CBs that I've played in, I can think of maybe 3 or 4 times an opposing team's player crashed, and all of those, I believe were legit.  

I think this proposed rule change would punish teams that had a genuine problem, more than prevent people trying to abuse a loophole.

This isn't the best solution, but maybe try to recreate the situation right before the crash.  Have the dead players step out and the only living players play the match.  This does create many other problems, not having the same spawns, not have the same tactical positions right before the crash, but it seems like a problem that doesn't have a clear cut solution.

I'll try to get some more people in on this discussion to see if we can come up with a workable solution for all.

[SignTist]

Very detailed.  I conquer.

Blitz
X1| DreamTeam Member

    concur    

make sure that you at least spell right before demeaning others

[Acri]

I TOTALLY DISAGREE!
That would mean that clans like X1 could do the following:
Start a game 5 vs 5.
Let Blitz crash and replace him with an AI!

This is so wrong! Obviously, the AI is better than Blitz!

And to Blitz: You are moving ever closer to Rapid-status. Keep your thoughts to yourself. Can't say I knew until yesterday when I read your fire-tossing. And to all of other MOD guys: In what way are you any better? I think everyone should learn to shut up.

[Toxic::Joka]

I TOTALLY DISAGREE!
That would mean that clans like X1 could do the following:
Start a game 5 vs 5.
Let Blitz crash and replace him with an AI!

This is so wrong! Obviously, the AI is better than Blitz!

And to Blitz: You are moving ever closer to Rapid-status. Keep your thoughts to yourself. Can't say I knew until yesterday when I read your fire-tossing. And to all of other MOD guys: In what way are you any better? I think everyone should learn to shut up.

And your above it all?  

[.::|N| DIESEL]

Lets control ourselfve kiddies.  Stop directing threads to others that are off topic.  Whattup cup shitta its been a while.  I hope the Finnish are treating you well.  

[.::|N|SOC]

bucc-

interesting post. email me with detailed instructions when you get a chance.

the underlying point is even more interesting.... there are plenty of ways to cheat out there. the past two seasons have been consumed with discussions of how to stop cheating, punish cheaters, identify cheaters, and how to generally assume that everyone out there, including your own clan-mates, is evil and underhanded and lying through their teeth about everything.

just to outline all the cheats we've identified so far...just kidding. I wouldn't even know where to start. not to mention that at least half of them have no agreed-upon method of identifying them, much less preventing them.

I guess my point is that this is a gaming league. Like all other voluntary competitive arenas (ie: a baseball league), we are here because we want to have fun playing the game, and we find it enjoyable to play at the highest level we can, to improve our play, and to do it with others whose company we enjoy. The better the other teams are, the better we get at the game, and the more satisfying it is to play, win or lose. Personally, every time I check this forum and find another cheat thread, my level of enjoyment is permanently eroded.

It used to be that I logged in, played the games, chatted a while, and basically had a good time. Now it seems like half of the time I spend on this league is somehow connected to discussions about who's cheating, how they did it, how to prevent it, and what the next big cheat will be.

I'm all for keeping this game fair, but I'm now leaning towards the opinion that ghost recon is fatally flawed. There are to many ways to cheat, and too many people who aren't having fun anymore, and just want to win or piss-off their rivals. If people are going to cheat, we're not going to stop them, not in this game. Every time someone even proposes a way to stop cheating, they either risk being accused of using that cheat, or confronted with worse versions of cheating. I think ghost recon is a great game. I'm amazed that it's even possible to play a game like this with all you great people. But it's not perfect, never will be perfect, and so competitive play will always be stained by those less-fine people who choose to abuse it. We can let the list of rules grow to a hundred of the most detailed, brilliant, most wise dictums ever put down, and it won't be enough.

I can't be the only one seriously considering hanging up my cb-shoes. Heck, some people have already. (One came back, god only knows why.....jk sp)

I know I would be no great loss to the league, since I've always kinda sucked anyway. Only thing keeping me here is that some of you are such great guys, and are really trying to fix all this.

[PLOPje]

ok I didnt read all of it but I thinknoone said it
If someone crashes leaves and there is an ai plaer left behind you can respawn and playw ith him you will get his weapons etc so not really a disatvantage to any clan then game can  just continue. I had some games when I respawned in an AI player when i normally couldnt respawn. He and its funny to kill the guy who killed you and leave him with alot of questions.

[Toxic::Joka]

I think we should assume the better of everyone until proven otherwise, the rule is good as it is. There, now I'm legit

Lets control ourselfve kiddies.  Stop directing threads to others that are off topic.  Whattup cup shitta its been a while.  I hope the Finnish are treating you well.  

It's all good D, still think the arch of st. louis is in seattle?  

Btw, PM me when you get on GR, ive been looking for you...  

[Acri]

"And your above it all?"

1: "And you're*** above it all?"
2: Yes.
3: I really gotta go pee.

[crypt]

Two times, during this season, a different player from the same clan (not mentioned), "crashed" in 2 cb's in a row, same clan, same situation, if we hadn't been winning the cb, we would have been less supicious nevertheless, I don't think too many clans would purposely "crash" to save a game or two.

[BTs_GhostSniper]

I personally have yet to see anyone crash in any CB that I've played in.

[Noto]

Um... I'm going to assume something here, although I hate to do so.  There have been many replies to this thread, but not a single one from an Admin.  What's the deal?  Is this being discussed or looked into?  I challenged a rule and asked for a reply.  If the reply is to keep this old rule, that's fine, but at least post something.  

.::|N| Noto

[Saberian 3000]

Well, with what Signtist said, I fully agree  

As for what Noto says, I agree as well in a sense that if the guys are down by 2 and their last guy crashes, it shouldnt be taken over, even though in a sense it wouldnt be fair for the other team.  I must agree in the sense of being fair to the winning team for that round that if the last guy should be accidentally eject3ed or crash after all his other team members have died, then the game should automatically go to the winning side of that particular round.  Again, just my thoughts there.

+MOD+Saberian