Raven Shield Rule Changes

[cO.Vickedson]

Hello everyone,

We are nearly complete with the revamping of the RvS rules and a major point has come up that I'd like to ask your input.

Currently each RvS cb is comprised of a best 3 out of 5 matches.  Each match is best 2 out of 3 rounds.

It has been thought that this creates a very long wait time with map loading and server changes.  We have thought that maybe a cb we be better comprised of the following"

RvS cb is comprised of a best 2 out of 3 matches.  Each match is best 4 out of 7 rounds.

This puts more of an emphasis on fewer maps but getting a rhythm down over 7 rounds similar to what we find when we play in public rooms, most notably Harveys.  Let us know what you think of this proposal.  We are not putting this to a public vote but do feel that community input is neccessary.

+Vick+

[theweakspot]

simply great idea, Vicky.  Changing maps is a big waste of time... this way, you spend less time choosing maps and more time playing.

[cO.Vickedson]

The best thing about it is getting those repetitive battles going at certain points in the map.  Slight alterations of stategy over 7 rounds to edge out your opponent is what RvS is all abour and I think this change will really get at what the developers of the game were trying to do.

Ok, I'll stop being subjective now and let others voice their opinions.

 

[theweakspot]

Vicky, will hicaps and gas not be allowed in cb's.... i would say that they shouldnt since most servers dont allow them anyway.

[dr.Skillz]

i guess , i dont care as long as we start cbing faster

[cO.Vickedson]

It's also being looked at to ban Hi-CAPS.

Gas is still in as far as I know, but I haven't heard that much opposition to it. 

[(SiX)Ben]

and make hbs patrt of cbs damnit

[dr.Skillz]

Keep HBS   and Gas but  BAN HI-CAPS - Spaming 101 bullets isnt skill

[dr.Skillz]

oh yea and HBs should be kept cause it isnt that great if u get close to other team they hear you and rush you with ur hbs out and your done for

[DarK.]

This sounds great, getting rid of High caps would be a plus too.

[core.Flies]

A reply from Core, that is not a directly "yes" or "no",
but merely a few thoughts and questions to the proposed change of rules:

If a CB is to be decided on a " 2 out of 3 " basis, the current hosting-rules have to be rewritten too,
before anyone can give a complete "yes" or "no" to the full idea.
What would in this case be the new suggestion for future hosting-rules ?

When splithosting, it will most likely often be one map won on each host.
Will the final map then be played on the 2.nd host ?
When lowering the number of maps to be played, one could fear it would be of ( too ? )huge importance
to the clans involved, which clan would host as number one and two.

A comment on mapswitches in a CB:

"To us, the change of map has been the least of the problems in our CB`s.
A map is suggested, the host load the map, and a few test-rounds are being played.

Looking back at previous CB`s, the most timeconsuming process has been the quitting and rejoining,
because players lost their connection on KDX, had to go eating, or had to be subbed...
In short: The most timeconsuming process is all the stuff going on, that you cant really expect to make rules for. "

When a clan suggest a certain map, we may assume its being picked because they feel they get the best changes to win with that map. This can be due to a mix of a lot of reasons:

* With the given host and the given pings, this map will suit the clans playstyle best.
* Since the rules as of now still gives the clan the option for picking both map and team-color,
the chosen map might be the map that favor them a bit.
* The clan might have developed a certain strategy for exactly that map.

The above is nothing but common logic.

If you raise the number of times each map has to be played, you will most likely just make it an even more convincing win for the map-picking clan.

Should the Raven-community in general show a need for playing each map more times,
we wouldnt go against it We are comfy with the numbers already stated and mor rounds would just raise the time for the full cb, but no prob.

But plz dont see the number of times on each map and the number of maps needed for the full cb as one combined discussion. To us its two indivdual discussions, with each their own angles.

Finally, concerning playing-rythm and restrictions:

When playing for the fun of it, in open normal games, you get a certain "playing-rythm".
This rythm is far from the playing-rythm you see in CB s.

I have often on my own host had the tear-gas and smoke-nades restricted too, when hosting fun-games.
but when you play in a CB, you play much more teambased, and with much more caution to the options the game gives you.  Restricting one element will also influence on the choice of other elements.
(In a CB, the high-cap magazines might be the best answer for a joining-clan, to withstand the advantages from a low-pinged hosting clan. The option of HBS and stationary HBS might be a smart counter-measure towards a camping clan - the HB-pucks also have their advantages, and so on and so on).

The CB should be considered a CB on the terms given by the game.
Thats also some of the reason why "show-weapon" was originally accepted.

OK - let me stop fro now, so this doesnt get too long.

Best regards
| ! |  Flies

[NiKLoT]

god flies are u author or something like that? u and ur monster texts....  but i totally agree with u! even if there are much details...

[core.Sinister]

Banning high-caps? WTF. Were not n00bs im sure everyone thats in the DBL knows how gay spam is. BUT the high-caps serve a massive purpose other than a bit of extra ammo. Id hope as been as your setting the rules that I dont need to explain what that is. Do I?

[NiKLoT]

w/e u make the rules i play the cbs! me and the rest of bbs dont really care about rules as long as they are for each person and each clan the same... at the end its a lot of bla bla for not very much if u ask me....

LETS CB

well btw its not that i want the season to start right now even if the rules are not finnished yet its just dont wast too much time with details they are important too but dont start 100 polls and 200 threads make it short and clear thats my opinion and im sure the adminis are doing a great job!, at this point i have to mention something that i recongnized.. the admin team is more or less all ghr players, hobby rvs players or more or less inactive players. is that cuz there are way more ghr players then rvs players or is it not so important if they are ghr or rvs players most important is they are good admins?

later

[Civrock]

Actually, there are as many admins that play RvS than GhR, if not more.

[spike]

You all seem content to play on Harv's server w/o hi-caps

[core.Sinister]

You all seem content to play on Harv's server w/o hi-caps

No-one ever plays or really likes "Meat Packing Plant" and harvey doesnt run it. That doesnt mean you should ban it.

also: Niklot didnt say there were not enough RVS admins he pointed out that the RVS admins dont actually play RVS really (or at least havnt played for long or participated in any CB's).

[spike]

I've particapted in cbs. Not for a few seasons, but under the same rules that hold now. Are you suggesting our admins are unworthy and should be unseated? I didn't see many people rushing to post when I posted the "You wanna be an admin" topic awhile back. I hate it when people bitch about something but then never try to change it.

[cO.twist]

I've particapted in cbs. Not for a few seasons, but under the same rules that hold now. Are you suggesting our admins are unworthy and should be unseated? I didn't see many people rushing to post when I posted the "You wanna be an admin" topic awhile back. I hate it when people bitch about something but then never try to change it.

most people don't feel comfortable just nominating themselves for an admin spot...There are tons of people willing to do it if they were asked.

[spike]

true. at macaddict they've got a rule that if someone asks to be a mod on the forums they're automatically out of the running. perhaps we should just stop asking.