Group Details Private

RGL Forum Moderators

Member List

  • @Flare There is always the option to ditch rounds in favor of halfs for koth. First to 2 wins the half., best of 3 halfs.

    posted in General
  • @vibeisveryo
    I do not know why its showing up like that.

    1. test
    2. test
    3. test
    1. test
    2. test
    posted in Feedback
  • Vibe pretty much hit the nail on the head, so I won’t continue that discussion, and just return to the topic at hand. Although for the record, I know what Ranked-Choice voting is, it is the system I used for my post-season favorite map polls that I made on the forums a while back.


    Lets discuss and compare the current HL system to Sixes. Sixes uses a Win/Loss system, with MP only serving as a tie breaker at the end of the season. This system has no issues with Sixes because they play two matches a week and their season is also an extra week longer. This means while HL only has 7 matches for their regular season, Sixes has 16. Lets look at the rankings from last season of Sixes vs HL to show it visually.

    img
    alt text

    I am a proponent of a Round-MP system like you want. I believe that it is a better way to rank teams when teams are evenly matched and gives more weight to how well a team actually plays during the regular season, leading to less overall skilled teams making it to playoffs and creating terribly unbalanced playoffs brackets. It also means that because each round is counted, it puts more emphasis on preforming the best at all times, and rewards teams for being able to take rounds against teams that were going to lose against anyways. I.E. it rewards consistency throughout the season. This would ideally also move us away from having to rely on RR styled match ups since swiss with Rounds won/lost would be a more accurate way of setting up matches and allow us more flexability instead of being div locked into the number of matches+1.

    However, the reality is that Win/Loss is what mostly everyone uses from professional sports, other E-sports, etc. And while Round-MP IMO is better for accurately judging the skill level of teams, It is harder to people to quantify compared to something as simple as Win/Loss. Not only that, but as you play more games throughout the season, how much Rounds matter vs Win/Loss decreases exponentially.

    If we should do anything, we should be trying to make all our league formats use the same systems to better align what we want as a comp tf2 community as a whole, and unless we are going to get sixes to use our system or even round-MP, the best option is for us to switch to Win/Loss instead.

    posted in General
  • @Inquisition In the context of the poll, none of them have pure round MP as an option (what you want), its all referencing the current system we have. At this point you are just inferring whatever you want from these polls to fit your narrative.

    You cannot say that these polls are flawed

    @Inquisition said in Highlander Match Point System:

    Just to add my two cents on these surveys, you’ve failed to learn anything correctly because you’re using multiple options without a rank choice system. Also, because you said ‘keep it how it is’ and ‘change it’ instead of explicitly stating what the current system is, or what the changes would you be, you pull in votes from people who are indifferent, and introduce a bias from people who don’t actually know what the current system is.

    While also claiming

    @Inquisition said in Highlander Match Point System:

    The season 3 poll and the season 7 polls are what I have been referencing. Also, as per my statements above, the season 4 poll does not show any conclusive information, whereas the other two polls show with certainty that win/loss is not preferred.

    At this point, I would not be surprised if some of the things you have said turn into a forum copypasta.

    posted in General
  • @Inquisition I agree that the forums do not represent a majority of players, however these forums whole purpose is to facilitate discussion and debate in a way that a simple poll can not always find a proper solution for. There has also been many polls that have happened because of forum posts. The most recent example is the July 4th break that happened recently.

    Also the system is not inconsistent with itself. Here is a screenshot I had saved from when this came up previously:

    alt text

    The winning team always gets 2 MP, the losing team then gets MP based off the rounds taken, up to 1MP. Payload is easy to do because you can only win one round, while koth has more rounds to be able to take/lose more points off of.

    EDIT: You can also view the new breakdown via https://rgl.gg/?a=1617

    posted in General
  • Unless you can provide the poll results itself instead of saying that another admin told you, it is nothing but hearsay.


    On that note, I was not able to find any of the poll results for what you are refrencing (500 error on the article list page) but I am able to refrence the previous forum threads about MP. Most of the people in those threads prefer Win/Loss over Rounds. That in itself makes me question even more where you got your information from or even how old that survey is.

    https://forums.rgl.gg/topic/1848/matchpoints-on-king-of-the-hill-hl-ruleset

    https://forums.rgl.gg/topic/1907/seasonal-point-system-sucks-thread

    posted in General
  • Open Fortress Source: https://openfortress.fun/blog/welcome-back

    TF2 Classic Source: https://tf2classic.com/?id=5380


    Open Fortress Blog

    Hello, everyone part of the Open Fortress community. We have decided that we are now going to re-open the game back to the general public.

    Ever since the day we got the first email from Valve asking us to take down the game, it has take a toll on not only us, but you, the community. In the time that you were all waiting for us to give you information as to what was going on - we were in the background sending emails back and forth to Valve to see if there was a way that they could help us in getting the proper things in order to get the game on Steam.

    After some time had passed we never really got a response back from them. We waited, thinking that they would eventually get back to us, but they never did.

    We have now taken it upon ourselves to bring the game back. We hate seeing you as a community sit and wonder what has happened and when we will ever return. As an ending note, please do not bring hate towards Valve over this. They are a big company and have other things that they need to tend to that are way more important.

    -OF Team


    TF2 Classic Blog

    As we’ve mentioned in the past, we had gotten in contact with Valve about a few questions regarding TF2 Sourcemods. In particular, about their stance on reverse-engineering, as the Open Fortress team was working on a reverse-engineered TF2 base to use in place of the 2008 leaked source code that most TF2 mods at the moment use.

    In short, their response stated that, while the Software Service Agreement allowed for modding to a certain extent, it both does not apply to the leaked code, and forbids the use of reverse-engineering. As such, they asked us to “stop distributing reverse engineered or leaked code, including anything compiled using that code or otherwise derived from it.”

    In the same email, Valve made it clear to us that they recognize and appreciate the creativity and motivation of the TF2 community, and were internally discussing the best way to let us express it. They asked us if we were interested in releasing our projects in the form of a mod on Steam, which would have required work from both parties.

    We sent them a response confirming that we would suspend downloads, alongside stating that we were very much interested in a Steam release, along with a few questions.

    Unfortunately, Valve has not responded to us in any form, despite us trying various ways to contact them after this initial email. Due to the lack of response, we’ve tried contacting them in multiple different ways, including through Steam support. On March 10, around 6 months after their last reply, we decided to send a final email announcing that we plan on opening our downloads back up until they re-affirm that they want us to keep them down. So our reasons for re-opening are due, in short, to the lack of response from Valve.


    posted in General
  • @lenn said in Class restrictions for players with excessive ping (or bad internet?):

    i also dont understand why people think im the team leader? i dont chose the players on my team and this is my personal opinion on why high ping players shouldnt be allowed on sniper in any scenario.

    No one said you were the team leader, but by agreeing to join this team, you agreed with everyone on whatever classes they were playing. This includes your apparently high ping sniper. I.E. You are being contradictory with your words and actions. I would honestly stop bring this point up as its low hanging fruit that is not important towards your overall point/arguement.

    but anyway i think this is a bigger deal in 6s than highlander since it does handicap you in the svs if you’re not the one peaking them. (which you should be doing on high ping)

    How is it a bigger deal in 6’s due to SvS, than HL that has perma snipers???

    posted in General
  • RGL does have rules against players who are laggy/teleporting around, causing the game to be unfair/unplayable. However you need to remember that high ping isnt an advantage, yes you can get shot from around corners since they on their screen you are still there, but it works the other way as well. You can kill them before they even have time to react, because you are not even on their screen yet.

    High ping is not the issue.

    Also having ping limits is completely unenforceable as ping within locations with poor connection can fluctuate. One day it can be below 150, another above. Not to mention depending on location. I get ~80 ping to LA, ~100 to Dallas, and ~130 to chicago.

    posted in General
  • @BBL One thing to note is that HL used to have player fees instead of team fees. However people complained ( I do not recall the thread on the old forums) and thus it was changed to team fees.

    IIRC, it was something about teenagers not being able to pay the fees because they were poor or had to jump through too many hoops to turn cash into paypal money or something. Someone else might have a better memory of it.

    posted in General