I'm as tired as you all are of the endless proposals put forth on this site. However, I figured now is as better time as ever to take a stab at this maddness and throw my 2 cents in on the matter.
Disclaimer: This should go into effect after we as a community have had A LOT (and I mean like a lot) of time to determine the statuses of certain maps. Like…..4-6 months down the road. I'll talk about that later. However, I feel like this is somewhat of the direction we should go.
First thing is first: I come from a mostly Smash background. However, I do not go to tournaments, compete in ladders, etc. with the community, I just watch big tournaments and I understand how the ruleset works. I come from NO FPS background. So a lot of things I say will be mostly based on that.
Going off of some things by @flc, a Challenger is the person who sets up the match, and the opponent is the defendant.
Also, I'd like to thank @Danny for the idea of implementing a map pool. I don't know if anyone else came up with it first, I just know that he was the first one I saw.
Gametype Pool creation: Personally, I feel as if we categorize gametype combinations into "neutrals" and "counterpicks" to make this a little more fair. If we could decide this as a community, we can move forward with the following setup. I am not saying this because I think a Smash ruleset works for this game. I just think that countering specific scenarios is a process in stage selection that works. I understand that we as a community will have to throw around many ideas on what gametypes should be "banned", "neutral," or a "counterpick," but in the end, there will be one consensus that arrives, albeit in a year or so.
Gametype Pool Selection for Bo5. (for Bo7, increase for 1 more counter on each team) *numbers are completley random, just showing how many gametypes are assigned to each.)
1: Agreed Neutral
2: Opponent Neutral
3: Challenger Neutral
4-6: Opponent Counters
7-9: Challenger Counters
This pool allows everyone to get a little of what they want. Because there is an odd number of matches that can be played, there needs to be a gametype that both teams agree on.
Match Progression: Here's how a match should work.
Match 1: Agreed Neutral
>This should come first. This is so that neither team feels like they were cheated out of match 1. Both teams agreed to this gametype. Match 1 can be very important, as we will see to come.
Match 2: Opponent Neutral
Match 3: Challenger Neutral
>This rounds out a mini Bo3. This the current winner and the current loser will greatly impact the coming matches.
Match 4: Loosing (basically the team with the least amount of wins) Counterpicks a stage from either list, theirs or the other team's.
Match 5: Looser of Match 4 Counter.
>By default, this would be the winner of the first match, need there be a 5th match.
In a Bo7, Matches 6 and 7 play like match 5, where the loser of the last round picks.
In a Squad War, this process would be repeated (making a "set") to make a Bo3 "war".
Other noteworthy rules:
-Maps are locked in before the weapon selection/player substitution occurs. Teams do not have to say if they have changed players or weapons or gear.
-Maps cannot be played twice in the same set.
-For each set, the map pool will be redrawn.
-A coinflip or will determine the host of the match. In a war, if this is an issue with the team that does not host the first set, they may host the second. A second coinflip will determine the host of a tiebreaker set.
-(any other rules? I think I covered most everything.)
I originally based this around a Bo5 and made some quick edits to make a Bo7. I feel that this is a solid setup for Squad Wars, but not necessarily tournaments. Tournaments should be held on a Bo7 format. This may need some edits as far as the Bo7 format.
This seems generally fair to me. Let me know what you guys think.
Disclaimer: This should go into effect after we as a community have had A LOT (and I mean like a lot) of time to determine the statuses of certain maps. Like…..4-6 months down the road. I'll talk about that later. However, I feel like this is somewhat of the direction we should go.
First thing is first: I come from a mostly Smash background. However, I do not go to tournaments, compete in ladders, etc. with the community, I just watch big tournaments and I understand how the ruleset works. I come from NO FPS background. So a lot of things I say will be mostly based on that.
Going off of some things by @flc, a Challenger is the person who sets up the match, and the opponent is the defendant.
Also, I'd like to thank @Danny for the idea of implementing a map pool. I don't know if anyone else came up with it first, I just know that he was the first one I saw.
Gametype Pool creation: Personally, I feel as if we categorize gametype combinations into "neutrals" and "counterpicks" to make this a little more fair. If we could decide this as a community, we can move forward with the following setup. I am not saying this because I think a Smash ruleset works for this game. I just think that countering specific scenarios is a process in stage selection that works. I understand that we as a community will have to throw around many ideas on what gametypes should be "banned", "neutral," or a "counterpick," but in the end, there will be one consensus that arrives, albeit in a year or so.
Gametype Pool Selection for Bo5. (for Bo7, increase for 1 more counter on each team) *numbers are completley random, just showing how many gametypes are assigned to each.)
1: Agreed Neutral
2: Opponent Neutral
3: Challenger Neutral
4-6: Opponent Counters
7-9: Challenger Counters
This pool allows everyone to get a little of what they want. Because there is an odd number of matches that can be played, there needs to be a gametype that both teams agree on.
Match Progression: Here's how a match should work.
Match 1: Agreed Neutral
>This should come first. This is so that neither team feels like they were cheated out of match 1. Both teams agreed to this gametype. Match 1 can be very important, as we will see to come.
Match 2: Opponent Neutral
Match 3: Challenger Neutral
>This rounds out a mini Bo3. This the current winner and the current loser will greatly impact the coming matches.
Match 4: Loosing (basically the team with the least amount of wins) Counterpicks a stage from either list, theirs or the other team's.
Match 5: Looser of Match 4 Counter.
>By default, this would be the winner of the first match, need there be a 5th match.
In a Bo7, Matches 6 and 7 play like match 5, where the loser of the last round picks.
In a Squad War, this process would be repeated (making a "set") to make a Bo3 "war".
Other noteworthy rules:
-Maps are locked in before the weapon selection/player substitution occurs. Teams do not have to say if they have changed players or weapons or gear.
-Maps cannot be played twice in the same set.
-For each set, the map pool will be redrawn.
-A coinflip or will determine the host of the match. In a war, if this is an issue with the team that does not host the first set, they may host the second. A second coinflip will determine the host of a tiebreaker set.
-(any other rules? I think I covered most everything.)
I originally based this around a Bo5 and made some quick edits to make a Bo7. I feel that this is a solid setup for Squad Wars, but not necessarily tournaments. Tournaments should be held on a Bo7 format. This may need some edits as far as the Bo7 format.
This seems generally fair to me. Let me know what you guys think.
Last edited: